Developers of apps that use end-to-end encryption to protect private communications could be considered hostile actors in the UK.
Don’t y’all vote over there? Government isn’t us vs them. Government is us. Period.
Up until basically after the last election this was essentially a two-party state. However much of a shitshow Labour is, the Tories were guaranteed to be much worse.
Also, there was a mind of unspoken assumption that human rights lawyer Keir Starmer would gradually move the party back to the left once in power, instead of spending 99% of his time trying to court the small minority of far-right voters who’d never vote Labour in a million years, which is what has actually happened.
And, unless there’s electoral reform in the next 3 years it looks like the actual far-right party will win the next election, because we’ve still got a system designed for a two-party stare in what is now really a 5-party state, meaning that Reform’s current 30% polling would see them with 100% control of the country, if the voting matched the polls.
We have been voting for greedy shits larping as conservative (Conservatives) and greedy shits larping as liberal (Labour).
Competition was always a myth anyways.
Boys… When it’s considered a hostle act to demand rights, ownership, and privacy… We have a problem.
Pervasive surveillance is a hostile act. Abetting genocide and other crimes against humanity is a hostile act. Serving the rich at the expense of the poor is a hostile act.
It’s a kingdom. They have a certain old dicksucker as a king. And they, importantly, don’t have any historical or current reservations about things you listed, fortified by documents.
deleted by creator
The usual.
You got a license for that comment?
Absolutely insanity.
Truly. This global push towards mass surveillance is extremely alarming.
If you don’t want your citizens to be hostile, don’t make yourself an enemy.
Well many governments see their citizens as hostile actors, so its not really a change, is it?
What the heck is happening with Europe in general? I thought they were better in terms of maintaining individual privacy, damm.
That’s europe, this is just UK. Brexit didn’t work out in a lot of ways they planned
I’d argue it worked exactly as intended.
The goal is to weaken the West by destabilizing our nations’ and organizations they belong to. They payed so much money for it that they bought into peerage.
Then explain Denmark
Tbh at this point I have zero faith in any country when they will just flip no one knows.
skankhunt42 has been trolling them hard and they can’t let it go
Who is shankhunt42?
PGP has been around since the 90’s can you PLEASE shut the fuck up.
Like please.
What the fuck happened to the UK? Is Trump president there too?
Meta happened. UK, US, all over the world there is a correlation between the adoption of Meta’s products and the corrosion of basic human rights.
Could you elaborate? Or maybe this is just a joke idk my brains not braining rn
The right wing fascism wave is a world trend my guy. This is just the start.
People pretend not to know but mass immigration creates…issues, and so the UK became a hotbed of espionage and influence operations. With a certain demographic there’s also a high risk of breeding terrorism and social unrest to say the least, that cannot be defused through typical means at such a high rate of immigration. While these particular measures are draconian, in the end something similar would be done. You see the same trend playing out in other European countries with Chat Control, so to say it is a UK thing is naive. On the other side of the Atlantic, the US probably already can break into these apps because of their technological superiority, and other countries like China straight up demand a back door, so privacy is well and truly dead in modern times.
The USA and UK are both Five Eyes members and routinely share intelligence. If the USA had compromised secure apps, wouldn’t the UK be privy to intelligence gathered via that method?
Remember how, before the internet, intelligence agencies by default didn’t know what anyone was saying to anyone else face to face or by mail, and had to actually work to find out? The country didn’t fall apart. Why is the standard now that everything must be handed to them on a plate? Did they just get lazy?
You’ll love this!
I deployed an open-source chat system at work, just for convenience. Boss was concerned that it didn’t do any logging and we couldn’t tell who said what.
“You don’t have any records of what we say verbally. What’s the difference?”
“…Oh. Well, you’re right.”
He was coming from a legit concern. We didn’t point fingers when someone screwed up, zero blame, but we needed to know exactly what happened so we could fix it.
I’m not disagreeing with you but what would happen back then is that they simply wouldn’t stop the crime.
At some point we need to decide if giving up all semblance of personal privacy is worth stopping some of that. I vote no enthusiastically. We just have to accept that some of that crime won’t be stopped and law enforcement will have to work harder.
They don’t even stop significantly more crime now… They simply invent new “crimes” and jerk each other off for keeping the streets safe from that minority eating their lunch or going for a walk.
If our countries could stop doing things that give people a reason to commit terroristic acts, Maybe that would solve some of it and we could be more secure in our papers and possessions without unlawful interference and undue search and seizures but that’s apparently none of my business
The elite know what’s coming. There isn’t enough to keep economic growth going and sacrifices will have to be made, and that’s not going to be the top. That means something is needed to detect and remove “problems” before they get big.
Ok but that is a separate discussion.
This isn’t a new concept by any means. The argument of crime prevention has been used since governments existed to strip rights
Sure, and we’ve always compromised on the 2 as a society. But we continually trend more and more towards prevention rather than privacy and sovereignty.
I would give up privacy only under one condition: everyone gives up all privacy. No exceptions.
They cut costs by firing the people doing the legwork and passed the savings along to billionaires who promised sustainable models. Now they can’t hire people to do real legwork anymore because, “no one wants to work anymore for their grandparents’ wage in an economy and society designed to turn people into voluntary slaves and the only way to escape is to become homeless and go off the grid, but the laws are being molded to prevent anyone from escaping the system.”
I’m pretty sure that’s how the old adage goes.
That they can is what has changed. They didn’t have sufficient information to put pressure.
They still had microphones and inquiry drugs, including those causing memory loss. So they knew plenty of what people were saying to each other.
Anyway. Everything has changed a lot, not just technology, and one can’t really make a chain of causation to all this. There are plenty of feedback loops.
The rules now are “we are stronger, so we are forbidding everything we don’t want”. Losing leverage does that.
Until you learn of some way to hit them back, such questions are no good, because not answering them doesn’t cost anything.
I think its a mixture of lazy and inexperience.
I believe if someone in a position of authority who understands how vital E2EE is in order for the internet to work, this suggestion wouldn’t even be on the table.
its a case of just kicking destroying E2EE down the road for another generation to deal with, I believe. not sure what the solution is, either
I believe if someone in a position of authority who understands how vital E2EE is in order for the internet to work, this suggestion wouldn’t even be on the table.
That might be an illusion. You might be perceiving the world without normalized E2EE as something too horrible to consider. But it would be a stable system, functional for the taste of those people.
Lawmakers will make exceptions to allow E2EE for their own communications and those of the very wealthy.
Let’s be hostile together then
Welcome to New East Germany.
Doesn’t even RCS and iMessages use E2EE?
I think most messaging apps these days have it. Allegedly even Discord (calls only, not text chat) has it.
I think part of this is lawmakers not understanding the gravity of what they’re suggesting. Besides, most of these apps have some sort of backdoor built-in so they can decrypt messages if required in legal proceedings. Ripping E2EE out of everything is an insane assertion to make, and would make the Internet an even more dangerous place than it already is.
Most definitely this.
Most lawmakers don’t understand even the surface level nuances of messaging and encryption. All they see is a communication solution that can potentially be used by bad faith actors without any possible oversight by the intelligence services.
Does iMessage store the keys locally and encrypt the entire message so only the recipient can decrypt it? Any idea what their handshake looks like—I’m curious if they can still see the messages or not.
