4 ms·

Wouldn't tapping at the server end be futile for messages with end-to-end encryption? So she must be asking for the removal of the encryption. I think that's wh

Wouldn't tapping at the server end be futile for messages with end-to-end encryption? So she must be asking for the removal of the encryption. I think that's why people are criticizing her. She's implying the encryption must go without explicitly stating it.

dreamfactored 9y ago
Well not all platforms are direct messaging, but sure for direct messaging apps with e2e encryption that would be one possibility. Or remove just for warranted individuals, or remove flagged messages etc. That's just off the top of my head in 2 minutes - the idea is that the tech companies are best positioned and incentivised to come up with a creative solution if they want market access. The politicians are explicitly acknowledging that they don't have expert knowledge and aren't trying to dictate a solution - they are just explaining the requirements. In ye olden days comms would go through a mail sorting system or a switchboard and authorised gov agents could take a peek as they needed and were allowed by law (hopefully). If a tech company wants to get into that business they need to figure out that part of the solution as well as the routing of messages bit. Government didn't mandate e2e encryption - that was a choice by tech companies, so the ball is being placed firmly in their court. (I do get the security and privacy concerns but that's a legal and governance question for the jurisdiction - a technology firm's business model or choice of technical architecture doesn't trump that.) I know this all seems really controversial and awful but from a governance view it's not really different to any other industry. For example if you want to sell chicken, you'll need to conform to a specific set of standards - doesn't matter if it's very inconvenient and you need to rebuild your entire manufacturing and supply chain to meet those standards for a given market. (Or the standards for another market might be very low and your existing fully traceable organic product is uneconomic etc)
- free_everybody 9y ago
  That makes sense, and thanks for taking the time to write that out. What still bothers me is the inevitability of some easily available software providing end-to-end encryption. Terrorists with an ounce of dedication will still figure out ways to subvert these policies.
- Gigablah 9y ago
  "I'm not the expert, you are. Therefore surely you can design something that fits these requirements." Your entire comment brings to mind this sketch: https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg
  - dreamfactored 9y ago
    Hardly. As I pointed out she isn't asking for anything logically impossible - that's just a conservative-minded assumption from people tethered to the status quo :) What's new is that they are talking about regulating the internet just as they regulate the radio spectrum, transport infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, the media, or anything else which meaningfully impacts the country. In principle, the UK government has the power and authority to block Facebook and Google and develop their own fully tapped and controlled platforms just as China has done. The question being put by the UK government is what is technically possible between that extreme and the status quo where you have foreign companies doing what they want, and what is politically acceptable.

dreamfactored 9y ago

Well not all platforms are direct messaging, but sure for direct messaging apps with e2e encryption that would be one possibility. Or remove just for warranted individuals, or remove flagged messages etc. That's just off the top of my head in 2 minutes - the idea is that the tech companies are best positioned and incentivised to come up with a creative solution if they want market access. The politicians are explicitly acknowledging that they don't have expert knowledge and aren't trying to dictate a solution - they are just explaining the requirements. In ye olden days comms would go through a mail sorting system or a switchboard and authorised gov agents could take a peek as they needed and were allowed by law (hopefully). If a tech company wants to get into that business they need to figure out that part of the solution as well as the routing of messages bit. Government didn't mandate e2e encryption - that was a choice by tech companies, so the ball is being placed firmly in their court. (I do get the security and privacy concerns but that's a legal and governance question for the jurisdiction - a technology firm's business model or choice of technical architecture doesn't trump that.) I know this all seems really controversial and awful but from a governance view it's not really different to any other industry. For example if you want to sell chicken, you'll need to conform to a specific set of standards - doesn't matter if it's very inconvenient and you need to rebuild your entire manufacturing and supply chain to meet those standards for a given market. (Or the standards for another market might be very low and your existing fully traceable organic product is uneconomic etc)

free_everybody 9y ago
That makes sense, and thanks for taking the time to write that out. What still bothers me is the inevitability of some easily available software providing end-to-end encryption. Terrorists with an ounce of dedication will still figure out ways to subvert these policies.
Gigablah 9y ago
"I'm not the expert, you are. Therefore surely you can design something that fits these requirements." Your entire comment brings to mind this sketch: https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg
- dreamfactored 9y ago
  Hardly. As I pointed out she isn't asking for anything logically impossible - that's just a conservative-minded assumption from people tethered to the status quo :) What's new is that they are talking about regulating the internet just as they regulate the radio spectrum, transport infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, the media, or anything else which meaningfully impacts the country. In principle, the UK government has the power and authority to block Facebook and Google and develop their own fully tapped and controlled platforms just as China has done. The question being put by the UK government is what is technically possible between that extreme and the status quo where you have foreign companies doing what they want, and what is politically acceptable.