3 ms·

Can we please not go into divisive politics here?

by z9e 7y ago

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
It's a reasonably well reported statement of fact, brought in IIRC at the suggestion of Dominic Cummings. Why should discussions by party members and researchers be less susceptible to all the ills claimed for Facebook? Why should different rules apply? Are they immune from illegality? So it speaks to the hypocrisy of those calling for the change. It would be no different if it were another party calling for same, whilst at the same time switching from Whatsapp to Signal. It would be reasonable for police investigating such possible crimes to have more secure channels. Edit: Someone else -- johnnycab -- already posted links further down to some of the reports: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21863326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21863326
- tialaramex 7y ago
  Back when the UK government decided that it should be possible to order records of TCP/IP connections to be kept for similar reasons the MPs asked if there shouldn't be an exception for them. Surely, they argued, as upstanding people they shouldn't be subject to the same rules as ordinary citizens. The Home Secretary of that time told them that unfortunately that was technically impossible, they'd just have to trust that it wouldn't be abused (for example to spy on opposition politicians)... Lots of people comforted themselves that that law required the Home Secretary to send a letter to order any such collection, and they imagined her writing maybe a dozen letters on a busy day, something like "Dear Tiny ISP, please keep records for your subscriber Steve Smith who we suspect of being a pervert". People more familiar with the actual negotiations behind the scenes say the letters actually went "Dear large UK Internet Backbone provider, per this new law, please store absolutely everything until further notice"...
thrwaway69 7y ago
I don't think that's fair considering how government approach is to blame the privacy for their incompetency and alternative intentions. Why should politicians who statistically have higher chance of being potential criminals than average population be able to use encryption?

Can we please not go into divisive politics here?

by z9e 7y ago

Can we please not go into divisive politics here?

It's a reasonably well reported statement of fact, brought in IIRC at the suggestion of Dominic Cummings. Why should discussions by party members and researchers be less susceptible to all the ills claimed for Facebook? Why should different rules apply? Are they immune from illegality? So it speaks to the hypocrisy of those calling for the change. It would be no different if it were another party calling for same, whilst at the same time switching from Whatsapp to Signal. It would be reasonable for police investigating such possible crimes to have more secure channels. Edit: Someone else -- johnnycab -- already posted links further down to some of the reports: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21863326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21863326

tialaramex 7y ago
Back when the UK government decided that it should be possible to order records of TCP/IP connections to be kept for similar reasons the MPs asked if there shouldn't be an exception for them. Surely, they argued, as upstanding people they shouldn't be subject to the same rules as ordinary citizens. The Home Secretary of that time told them that unfortunately that was technically impossible, they'd just have to trust that it wouldn't be abused (for example to spy on opposition politicians)... Lots of people comforted themselves that that law required the Home Secretary to send a letter to order any such collection, and they imagined her writing maybe a dozen letters on a busy day, something like "Dear Tiny ISP, please keep records for your subscriber Steve Smith who we suspect of being a pervert". People more familiar with the actual negotiations behind the scenes say the letters actually went "Dear large UK Internet Backbone provider, per this new law, please store absolutely everything until further notice"...

thrwaway69 7y ago

I don't think that's fair considering how government approach is to blame the privacy for their incompetency and alternative intentions. Why should politicians who statistically have higher chance of being potential criminals than average population be able to use encryption?