17 ms·
The Online Safety Bill: An attack on encryption
- rexrobin 4y agoI really wonder what will happen to escort sites like AW and VS when this bill inevitably passes. With “controlling prostitution for gain” being a priority offence in the Bill, it seems like escort sites will be running a major risk, since they directly facilitate such activity.
- joanne123 4y ago[dead]
- iaccountthencom 4y agofreedom (liberty) really goes away if we stop defending it. it's like cleaning (like any and all maintenance work), you're never done with it. what a lie (a mistake) to believe that liberty once fought and realized stays with us, in a state of having been won. It must be maintained, it's like being in shape. Liberty, software, bureaucracies and their complicated interactions... why must it get worse before it gets better? why does it seem like tyranny is easier to keep?
- nerdponx 4y ago> why does it seem like tyranny is easier to keep? I think it's a lot like the "paradox of tolerance". if society is too tolerant of intolerant people, the intolerant people end up taking over and society becomes intolerant as a whole. Analogously, there are always people, organizations, and emergent forces that seek to deprive individuals of their freedom. A society that is excessively free will allow these forces to flourish, leading to loss of freedom and ultimately an unfree society. In an economic context for example, this is the basic argument in support of antitrust law.
- colpabar 4y agoI'm really tired of the "paradox of intolerance" being brought up, mainly because the people who use it are almost always using it to defend a government making something illegal.
- Akronymus 4y agoOr using intolerant as a synonym for "stuff i dont like" and/or obliging othets to be intolerant of x
- nerdponx 4y agoAnd I'm tired of police brutality being brought up, but innocent civilians keep dying at the hands of police officers. I'm also tired of talking about inflation and housing prices, but the numbers keep going up even when I close my eyes, cover my ears, and shake my head a lot. Anyway, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I posited an explanation for why tyranny in some form another seems like a default state in human organizations. If you think my explanation is wrong, I'd like to hear an actual argument or evidence against it.
- colpabar 4y agoI guess my comment was a bit of an axe-grind rather than a response to your statement. I saw "paradox of tolerance" and was triggered. To clarify, I find it frustrating when people justify the government making laws that limit or take away existing freedoms by claiming that they are "preventing intolerance". I believe that laws are, first and foremost, justifications for the government to use force against you, and no government in the history of mankind has ever given a single shit about "preventing intolerance". They care about keeping the rich rich and the working class oppressed and powerless. To your point, I completely disagree, and think it's extremely naive. Tyrannical governments seem to be the default because it's the easiest way for the powerful to control the powerless, which is the fundamental purpose of most governments throughout history.
- nerdponx 4y ago> Tyrannical governments seem to be the default because it's the easiest way for the powerful to control the powerless, which is the fundamental purpose of most governments throughout history. Okay, but that's the whole nature of OP's question: Why does tyranny arise again and again, as if it were a natural equilibrium state of some kind? I don't see why government should be treated differently from other institutions in analyzing this question. Deebo and Lord Farquad were both tyrants; was the nature of their tyranny any different, just because one happened to represent "government" and the other didn't? My proposition is that it requires constant effort and vigilance to prevent the rise of tyranny, because the forces that lead to tyranny are ever-present. So any society that exists temporarily in a non-tyrannical state is still subject to power grabs and takeover attempts by would-be tyrants. Maybe you're implying that the existence of a state or government is what facilitates such tyranny; I've heard that one many times. I contend that if the state did not exist, then other people and institutions would fill the same role; that the nonexistence of a state would not represent an impediment to tyranny; and that the existence of a state is not itself a strong indicator of the presence of tyranny.
- alphanullmeric 4y agoThere’s no paradox. Force is only justified in response to force. You don’t have the right to censor speech you find offensive if that speech isn’t making a threat. You’re the only one trying to deprive people of their freedom.
- nerdponx 4y agoPopper originally called it the "paradox of tolerance", and that's the name people know it by.
- cnity 4y agoBoth chaos (anarchy) and order (tyranny) are at constant war in the most fundamental law of nature.
- vmoore 4y ago> it's like cleaning (like any and all maintenance work), you're never done with it And governments are going to constantly try to regulate the Internet and crack down on it, because it's a threat to them. Look at China where regulation reached its logical conclusion. I'm just enjoying our little golden age of the web where I don't have to upload a scan of my passport just to read a blog post. These are the good ol' days we will look back on fondly. Make the most of them.
- feanaro 4y agoHow about no? Let's fight and make it better, for us and for our children.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoI think we all know how important encryption is but what about the tyranny of unaccountable foreign actors? Is liberty allowing communication that isn't beholden to anyone? It's a complicated question.
- developer93 4y agoI disagree, I think the definition of liberty is not being beholden to anyone.
- Clubber 4y ago>why does it seem like tyranny is easier to keep? Tyranny is the default of civilization. When left alone, that's what it turns into. Tyranny is weeds in your garden. A few here and there not plucked, after a while, you have nothing to eat. Freedom and liberty must always be tended to because of this.
- notch898a 4y agoHN thinks KYC and subpoena access is great for bank accounts. Information is even more dangerous than money. We should know who says what where it is going and be able to subpeona the underlying information. It could be criminal activity, communication to terrorists, etc and even just producing non-criminal information aids these criminals by hiding it in the noise.
- atemerev 4y agoNo, we don’t. Which is one if the reasons we are building crypto.
- developer93 4y agoPeople who aren't doing anything wrong should not be penalised, there's the presumption of innocence which is an underlying principal of a free state. Should police have keys to every house in case of domestic violence?
- notch898a 4y agoNah battering rams are fine and more fun. It's also a good excuse for them to toss a flash-bang in the crib on the way in. If somehow an un-pickable lock were the only way to get into a house and a sizeable portion of houses could practically be built that way, you can bet the courts would invent a reason why the government has to have the key in basically every anglo-sphere country. It would only take a few news stories about "women beaten to death while police desperately and futilely attempt entry" or "terrorist hiding in London house, alive and well years after attack but unable to be arrested" before half the public would start begging for something to be done about it.
- developer93 4y agoThat's not a analogous scenario though, because a) afaik police still need a warrant for a battering ram, they can't just enter, and b) battering rams are kind of a 1 time thing and very very obvious. The key is more like the police can just let themselves in at any time to check that there's no dv going on. If you're not home you don't even know if they were there. And incidentally some silverware has gone missing... That's closer to the scenario we're talking about.
- sublinear 4y agoThis is probably an unpopular and overly-lax opinion, but I think the bureaucrats have to put something out there to justify themeselves. Is there any other mechanism available to them to start discussions and discover why it's a bad idea? Isn't the process of writing legislation just an attempt to enumerate all possible ideas in line with their party as a matter of course?
- Lolaccount 4y agoThis isn't bureaucracy, it's creeping fascism. And I don't say that lightly. It won't succeed, but that's the current reality.
- AJ007 4y agoAnd if it isn't intentional it's a demonstration of ignorance about history, government, and how technology works. The supporters should be kicked out of office or lose their jobs if unelected. They can get jobs managing restaurants or something else autocratic.
- developer93 4y agoIn the UK this has been knocked off the table multiple times, and yet somehow it keeps finding it's way back. "They only have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky all the time".
- nimbius 4y agoOddities in the bicameral system in the UK are routinely produced which are themselves not to be taken seriously by the initiated. Obviously this bill would be a massive regression for a nation thats still in freefall after Brexit and a recent slew of poor neoliberal monetary policies. Former prime minister Boris Johnson was infamous for pitching outlandish ideas like this in the face of mounting criticism of his party and governance. my hypothesis is this bill serves to misdirect the public using moral panic to distract from serious issues like the NHS funding crisis and the slow rolling catastrophe of brexit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy
- Veen 4y agoThis bill has cross-party support. It's not a conspiracy by the Tories—Labour, the LibDems, and the SNP want it too.
- themitigating 4y agoPer the leadership or by members?
- developer93 4y agoThis is the end game that multiple British governments have been aiming at for decades. "Let's ban encryption" has been on the table at least as far back as Cameron, I think maybe also Blair. It kept getting knocked back (because obviously a blanket ban on encryption is ridiculous) but then it comes back in a slightly different form. It's been proposed at least 3 times that I can think of in the last 20 years. There's a documentary from the 90s called taking liberties which is part of what got me interested in privacy, if you watch it you'll see how long that's been building.
- Arathorn 4y agoUnfortunately the bill is quite far advanced, hence us sending up distress flares like this: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137#timeline https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137#timeline
- jjbinx007 4y agoThis is pretty awful: Before the bill even made it to the House of Lords, you can see the creeping political censorship. In a written statement on 17 January 2023, the government added an amendment that “posting videos of people crossing the channel that show that activity in a positive light” should be considered “priority illegal content.”
- Veen 4y agoThey want to crack down on people traffickers advertising their services.
- Rekksu 4y agopresumably they can do that without criminalizing speech
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoThis is still not the way to do it. There are other of methods of law enforcement[0] that don't require any given message to be available for interception. Something like ANOM is more difficult to pull off but it's also less prone to error, which is a more important thing to optimize. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOM
- gjsman-1000 4y agoYes... but how many times can you pull off ANOM? It worked really well once - but by the time there's the 5th, or 6th, or 7th security company that criminals have never heard of and a long string of dead companies, they'll be quite wary.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoI'm sure dedicated people can be more creative than to just do ANOM 7 times but I do get your point. Anyway, I realized after I wrote the comment that ANOM is a bad example for arguing in favor of ubiquitous end-to-end encryption (E2EE). ANOM is only attractive to criminal organizations because other forms of "E2EE" are not resilient to government snooping. It's kind of an interesting point but I do personally land on a preference for ubiquitous E2EE. Ultimately, I suspect the resources of law enforcement would win out given enough creativity from officers but, unfortunately, the current ecosystem does not require them to be creative.
- f38zf5vdt 4y agoIt's remarkable how close the UK is getting to CN-styled internet. It would not surprise me to see a proposal to firewall the island off from the rest of the world, mandatory British government apps for services, etc., following the permanent installation of a dictator. Coupled with the promotion of a national digital currency, it's hard to see a future where Britain does not devolve into fascism. It has not had a democratically elected leader for years now.
- cyberpunk 4y agoThe UK doesn't elect a leader, it elects a parliamentary party which chooses its own leadership. People did actually vote for this. Although for the people in scotland, this is more accurate. We are not represented for over a decade by the UK government, and have been removed from the EU against our will...
- Veen 4y agoThere are 59 Scottish MPs in Parliament, many of whom support the Online Safety Bill. In fact, SNP MPs have consistently argued for stronger 'protections' than the Bill's proposers originally wanted. How is Scotland not represented in Parliament?
- vidarh 4y ago43.6% of the electorate voted for the Tory party on a manifesto not very much like what the current government is delivering. So even if one accepts that the Tory party totally changing the platform of their government doesn't justify saying nobody voted for it, the current party in government got its majority in parliament with the support of a minority of voters thanks to a fundamentally undemocratic electoral system. By that measure, it's pretty reasonable to say that people did not vote for this.
- sacrosancty 4y ago[dead]
- klelatti 4y ago> it elects a parliamentary party which chooses its own leadership That’s not quite true - the parliamentary Tory and Labour parties gave away the right to select the leader to their members. Hence we got Truss who MPs didn’t vote for but members did.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoNot really surprised - the UK is already Europe's biggest surveillance state.
- t0bia_s 4y agoUK was a cradle of democracy. Those steps rise questions, if this kind of democracy is what we are really looking for.
- KaiserPro 4y agoI thought this bill was being dropped as part of the re-shuffle?
- kmlx 4y agoseems to be in a committee phase: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137
- pookha 4y agoI like to view governments like John Gall viewed systems. Government -- like systems -- will expand to fill the known universe. Encryption makes the known unknown so it's not built to last within unchecked government system sprawl.
- olliej 4y agoIs it to protect the children? :-/
- Smar 4y agoMore like to subdue them.
- t0bia_s 4y agoMost child abuse is in family, between relatives. I dont know how exactly banning encryption should protect them. Where are studies or data for justify this bills? I guess it's just another fear agenda to tight freedom and human rights and rise state surveillance. Like terrorisms brings CCTV and phone monitoring, etc.
- olliej 4y agoOh I know, my comment was (and based off multiple comments it was unclear) intended to be "oh, they're using 'protect the children' to preflight surveillance again aren't they?"
- amadeuspagel 4y ago> That the likes of Facebook have failed in their duty to moderate content is part of what has led to the OSB. No, the idea that the likes of facebook have a "duty to moderate content" led to the OSB.
- Barrin92 4y agoAs far as literally illegal content like for example abuse material goes, Facebook like any other business has an obligation to make sure it doesn't facilitate it. That's no different than any old fashioned offline business having to make sure activity is within the law.
- H4ZB7 4y agoi'm pretty sure both the article and the person you replied to are talking about verbal abuse as opposed to illegal content. and no, websites DO NOT have an obligation to make sure their content is legal. that's your own misconception as well as many judges but at the end of the day forcing people to chase intractable problems is always wrong and naive. the root problem here is that it's possible for content to be illegal, along with billion dollar brainwashing profit oriented prosecution business that made you think this is a rampant problem (it isn't). this article is uninteresting clickbait by fake grassroots webshit crypto company that can be cracked in 2 seconds solely because their trusted code base is hundreds of millions of lines of code in 7 different languages including C. we are just here to cringe at yet another UK police state episode more than anything particular the article stated
- ugjka 4y agoSo the Govt now gonna MITM the facebook traffic and moderate it? They'll need to build huge pipes....
- SimonPStevens 4y agoBills like this keep coming back. Can we instead look to pass the opposite? A bill that marks the right to use private encryption as a fundamental right? Is that kind of thing possible? Where or how would I support such an activity?
- NikkiA 4y ago> Is that kind of thing possible? Not in the UK because of parliamentry authority, no. A law cannot be made that binds future parliament from being able to undo it, thus 'fundamental rights' cannot be legislated.
- seanw444 4y agoI treat it as an arm. I wield it for defensive purposes the same way I concealed carry for defensive purposes. And in the US, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. At least in theory.
- notch898a 4y agoEncryption is far more dangerous than a gun, it's more like a nuke. You can't individually bypass the entire US or UK government with a gun but you can reasonably expect to do it with strong encryption executed well. You could use the same hocus-pocus people use to explain why say a surface to air missile isn't "arms" to explain why encryption isn't "speech", and honestly it'd probably be easier to do with the latter.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- l33t233372 4y agoEncryption is not a weapon of mass destruction. I can’t point encryption at you and end your life.
- notch898a 4y ago
- adventured 4y ago> But even allowing for that challenge, and that the OSB has some genuinely good intentions, the proposed legislation is still remarkably poor. The part where these articles always claim a horrific bill has some genuinely good intentions - it's truly obnoxiously weasely. No it does not have genuinely good intentions. It's a fraud wrapped inside a con wrapped inside a gigantic theft of human liberty and privacy. Just because someone feeds you sugar so that the poison they're giving you tastes better, it does not mean the intentions are good.
- heywherelogingo 4y agoThe UK is making many bad decisions, and descending into a dystopian horror. Where to emigrate to?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- etothepii 4y agoCome to Bermuda. If you want to know more email me from the details in my bio.
- notinfuriated 4y ago> The bill takes a wrecking ball to the very fabric of encryption, by requiring encrypted messaging apps to scan for abusive content within the app (or the app’s underlying operating system). Perhaps I misunderstand the analogy, but this doesn't seem to do anything to the "very fabric of encryption." It certainly would make me have zero trust in any encrypted messaging apps that continue to operate in the UK and follow this law. Otherwise, anyone who wants to have truly encrypted messaging can do this on their own. And if the barrier of entry for learning how to sign messages is too high, I don't doubt that open source encrypted messaging apps already exist or will quickly come into existence and will refuse to comply with laws like these. What are they going to do, force math to comply with their laws?
- developer93 4y agoI assume they would have something like a keylogger so that it was scanned before being encrypted/after being decrypted
- abvdasker 4y ago"Won't somebody please think of the children"-style legislation over public safety online is always used as a trojan horse for surveillance and censorship. This has been done so many times at this point that I just default to assuming these measures are created for sinister reasons. I haven't been wrong once yet.
- alwayslikethis 4y agoAttacking encryption has always been done in the name of safety, whether from "criminals" or for national security. There are no legitimate reasons why a free people should have their right to encrypted communications taken away. Therefore, when you try to introduce such legislations without such a pretext, people don't like it. They have to create a moral panic (lately usually terrorists or pedophiles) in order to get such legislation to pass.
- 10g1k 4y ago"We all want to be able to address abuse on the internet." No, we don't. Many of us are fine with free speech, and believe the only valid form of censorship is choosing not to listen.
- etothepii 4y agoI suspect the quoted poster would have been referring to images of sexual abuse. Not the prepubescent saying, "Yo' mum..."
- userbinator 4y agoMeanwhile, Big Tech will continue to use encryption to lock down the computers that they want us to think we own, but are ultimately under their control since they have the keys.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kazinator 4y ago> And all that loss of security will be for nothing because - no surprise - bad actors don’t play by the rules. Well, bad actors and most of FOSS.
- porknubbins 4y agoAnything calling itself Safety” without indicating what it provides safety from is probably a restriction on freedom. What gets me about the UK is they use euphamisms so much it ends up sounding more sinister. In the US we’d just hid it in a farm bill or something though, not that much better.