alt Hacker News> He warns that developers of apps like Signal and WhatsApp could technically fall within the legal definition of "hostile activity" simply because their technology "make[s] it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor communications.
Sounds like Let's Encrypt would also fall under that.
This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the streets they walk on. I walk on them too. And don't use CP as a catch-all argument to insert backdoors.
Their big problem here is that previously, it was hard to find people with the same opinion as you. If you couldn't find someone in the same village who wanted to start a rebellion, it probably wouldn't happen. Today, someone can post a Telegram group message and make thousands of people rally to a town square. I see the dangers, and I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people. No one wants civil war. That is still not a strong enough reason to call road construction a hostile activity.
I'm back in Sweden after 12 years abroad. Time to read up on which parties are sane and which aren't when it comes to technical infrastructure.
Replies
Curtains should also fall under the same category because they do make it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor suspect activities. Then of course you also have walls...
The argument is so fundamentally stupid that they should be embarrassed just putting it down in writing!
> I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people.
they're not doing this to protect people, they're doing this to ensure there cannot be rebellion against unpopular policies. Organization is harder if all communications is monitored.
But this is how gov't get to be kept in check - the risk of "rebellion". If this risk is removed, you get authoritarian states - see north korea.
> Time to read up on which parties are sane and which aren't when it comes to technical infrastructure.
Check out the Pirate party's stance on integrity and internet:
This is about the astonishing lack of ability in the political class in the UK. The security services are honestly wagging the dog and they think they can force some kind of key escrow eventually, but instead they’ll just destroy software development in the UK and possibly financial services.
It’s the same with the multi billion ID cards and digital ID which is almost impossible for a government as incompetent as this one to implement.
> If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites,
I don't think their real intention is to stop criminals, it's just the smoke screen similar to ChatControl and other similar legislations prohibiting privacy elsewhere.
> This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the streets they walk on.
That would be against everything european governments stand for.
> Today, someone can post a Telegram group message and make thousands of people rally to a town square. I see the dangers, and I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people.
Yes. Previously this capability was reserved for the CIA.
Governments always focus on the tools and not the people. Troubleshooting and resolving the root cause requires work. They do not get paid to work or care meaning they could sit on their hands and still get paid.
> I see the dangers, and I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people.
That's what they say, but that's a smokescreen. They do it because they believe it helps them consolidate and keep power.
> Today, someone can post a Telegram group message and make thousands of people rally to a town square
The "fun" part of this is that the person writing the message on these apps might not even be a local person involved, but some person far away in another country just trying to stir up some shit.
So you still believe that system which gives people less freedom with every new regulation would solve anything by contributing to it? Shouldn't we abandon the idea of giving our repsonsibility and power to uknown electorate?
> Today, someone can post a Telegram group message and make thousands of people rally to a town square. I see the dangers, and I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people. No one wants civil war.
The solution for government is simple: stop being scumbags whose only purpose is making people's lives more and more miserable by optimizing for total control and corporate profits.
I agree with your point and this is just a minor thing but it annoys me whenever it comes up:
Telegram is a terrible example. It is one of the few messengers that do not support end-to-end enrypted group chats. It is also heavily moderated. Your group will not be closed immediately but before anyone could pick up their pitchfork and certainly before it reaches a critical mass.
I wonder if architects should be prosecuted first making non-transparent building structures making the observation of people very very hard for those puny security and intelligence agencies! Architects, you bastards! You aid and abet criminals!
Don't get me started on locksmiths, oh the horror!
They can’t even prosecute grooming gangs, the pretence it’s about “the children” rings completely hollow.
The UK is a failing nation run by pedophile apologist imbeciles. This is just desperate flailing to hold onto power by any means.
> Today, someone can post a Telegram group message and make thousands of people rally to a town square. I see the dangers, and I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people.
Don't play into their propaganda. Governments don't like it because they're protecting themselves and their power; making it harder for people to find each other and organize and rally is one of many ways governments do that. (There's a reason authoritarian governments regularly shut down cell networks.)
https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2...
> The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”