News No more end-to-end encryption (almost)

[Hoppipolla]

Wow this is crazy. I'm here in the UK and... I think it's the first country to do it but... possibly Australia has done it and other countries are predicted to follow.

Basically the OS will be mandated to scan the messages. So even if they're encrypted when they're sent it doesn't matter because they were scanned before and afterwards.

Unless both sides use an OS like Linux where you have full control over the OS. I'm not sure if it will be added there too but if it is you can remove/disable it far more easily.

So yeah, mad world, eh?


If you want to learn a bit more about it then I learned most of what I know about it now from this video:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyKkZxyasHE

 

[FrothySolutions]

100 years ago no one complained about the Postal Service making sure our mail was safe. Why is it now all of a sudden we need to be allowed to send secret illegal things?

 

[Lawrence]

-
I saw this article, and this may help to give you a more accurate description of the new law's requirements:

UK passes the Online Safety Bill — and no, it doesn’t ban end-to-end encryption
-

 

[Angry_runt]

They can't ban math and encryption is math.

 

[Stupid Clown]

Technologycoping is getting fucked so fast. It's over.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Can’t spell cuck without UK.

 

[Hoppipolla]

Technologycoping is getting fucked so fast. It's over.

Also it's interesting that we're also being recorded pretty much everywhere and most of these cameras upload to the cloud, have night vision, sound, etc.

And AI these days is getting very good at detecting criminal activity in video.

 

[Stupid Clown]

Also it's interesting that we're also being recorded pretty much everywhere and most of these cameras upload to the cloud, have night vision, sound, etc.

And AI these days is getting very good at detecting criminal activity in video.

what a nightmare world we live in.

 

[Hoppipolla]

what a nightmare world we live in.

Yeah it's surreal. Even residential houses have so many cameras these days.

I mean, I totally get the desire to put up cameras. I may even put some on my house for security reasons.

But... the true invasion of privacy comes when they upload to the cloud, or if the person holding the footage is the type of person to use them to try to intrude unnecessarily into the activity and privacy of people who just happen to be near the house.

 

[Friezacel]

100 years ago no one complained about the Postal Service making sure our mail was safe. Why is it now all of a sudden we need to be allowed to send secret illegal things?

the answer to your question starts with k

 

[Hoppipolla]

100 years ago no one complained about the Postal Service making sure our mail was safe. Why is it now all of a sudden we need to be allowed to send secret illegal things?

Surely invading privacy should be avoided as much as possible though?

Just because sometimes it might be necessary doesn't mean we should do it all the time.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Surely invading privacy should be avoided as much as possible though?

Just because sometimes it might be necessary doesn't mean we should do it all the time.

But why now? Why is this considered an invasion of privacy now? It wasn't until very recently.

 

[Hoppipolla]

But why now? Why is this considered an invasion of privacy now? It wasn't until very recently.

I guess people consider it unnecessary.

It would be like if you were travelling somewhere by boat and they subjected you to the same intensive security as they do at the airport.

It would clearly be overreach and unreasonable.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I guess people consider it unnecessary.

It would be like if you were travelling somewhere by boat and they subjected you to the same intensive security as they do at the airport.

It would clearly be overreach and unreasonable.

They're messages, so it's more like intensive security at the post office with your mail. Which they already do.

But even if they did start treating boat security like they do airplane security, why would that be wrong? Why is it not overreach at the airport?

 

[Hoppipolla]

They're messages, so it's more like intensive security at the post office with your mail. Which they already do.

But even if they did start treating boat security like they do airplane security, why would that be wrong? Why is it not overreach at the airport?

Because of 9/11.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Because of 9/11.

So the assumption is that terrorism can't happen on a boat?

 

[Hoppipolla]

So the assumption is that terrorism can't happen on a boat?

No it's that a plane can be turned into a guided missile! You can't do that with a boat.

So it's considered reasonable for that reason.

Likewise, you can send bombs in the mail.

 

[FrothySolutions]

No it's that a plane can be turned into a guided missile! You can't do that with a boat.

So it's considered reasonable for that reason.

Likewise, you can send bombs in the mail.

And you can conspire to commit terrorism through Internet messages. If the question is "Is somethin' gonna happen if we don't enforce security here" then the answer is "Yeah, terrorism will totally happen if we let terrorists communicate without checking their messages."

 

[Hoppipolla]

And you can conspire to commit terrorism through Internet messages. If the question is "Is somethin' gonna happen if we don't enforce security here" then the answer is "Yeah, terrorism will totally happen if we let terrorists communicate without checking their messages."

Do you also think they should listen in to all in-person conversations?

 

[FrothySolutions]

Do you also think they should listen in to all in-person conversations?

They don't have the means for that.

But there is a lot of privacy advocacy based around "I would rather let the terrorists plan their crimes than share my conversations with authorities." I get wanting privacy, but I can't agree with that thinking.

 

[Asgard]

They can't ban math and encryption is math.

 

[gummybearcel]

I fucking hate the UK I will move to another country soon probably.

 

[Asgard]

I fucking hate the UK I will move to another country soon probably.

Pirate Kingdom is cucked. You should probably move overseas.

 

[sultryloser]

This bill just became an act last week.
It's not a good look for the UK, but honestly this country has gone to complete and irredeemable shit.
Sites like .is wont be affected. Windows will possibly be less privacy respecting, and you should not give out threats of rape anywhere online in the UK, because that will get you prison time (meanwhile real life rape is often unpunished for certain groups committing it).
It's fun to comment on it, but I don't see how this will affect my life in any way.

 

[sultryloser]

They can't ban math and encryption is math.

They also can't ban a lexicographic code-table shared physically between terrorists.
So many of these ideas are half-baked by brain-dead and soon-to-be dead Boomers, and I think they are pretext for having more control over you life...I mean obviously; life is about sex, power, and money.

 

[Swagpilled]

is the west free of what?

 

[Hoppipolla]

They don't have the means for that.

But there is a lot of privacy advocacy based around "I would rather let the terrorists plan their crimes than share my conversations with authorities." I get wanting privacy, but I can't agree with that thinking.

I guess it depends how free a society you want to live in.

Freedom vs security/safety.

Different countries take different stances on this.