4 ms·

And if it goes, the "terrorists and child sexual abusers" they're writing this bill to target move to Telegram. Then whatever other application allows them to s

And if it goes, the "terrorists and child sexual abusers" they're writing this bill to target move to Telegram. Then whatever other application allows them to speak in private. The rest of the electorate is left massively inconvenienced for zero gain. My guess is they spent many thousands of hours in civil servant time to achieve something of no use to anyone. The incompetency of this government honestly astounds me.

gavaw 3y ago
As the article says, this bill is not targeting whatsapp specifically. Any other e2e-encrypted chat app will have to leave the UK as well. (Which Telegram isn't, btw)
- Aromasin 3y ago
  I read that in the article and meant to scratch Signal off the list but never did. Fixed now. The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    You mean people committing crimes will also commit a crime to commit those crimes? I never thought of that. Such clever criminals. The above statement is absurd right? I'm legitimately asking because I feel as though I must be missing something. Maybe it will stop a few folks and that is the victory? I think the new entries learning that the technology is working might be more numerous than the people who get stopped. Pedos read news don't they?
    - kevincox 3y ago
      This is the reason that the IRS asks you to declare your illegal income. It can be used as a tool to make catching crimes easier. If using encrypted communication is illegal then they can just ding all of the criminals for that, or their criminal activities are harder to operate because they need to hide existence of communication from law enforcement, not only the contents. If it is legal then they have to 1. identify who is doing other crimes 2. prove those crimes. So the more crimes that criminals need to perform to get their "valuable" crimes committed the more likely it is that they get caught for something. I don't believe at all that the means justify the ends, and I think the ends in this case will be only a very minor bother for criminals. But there is some logic to this concept.
  - tailspin2019 3y ago
    > The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team. Totally agree. This is partly what makes me so frustrated with this sort of legislation, because the technical arguments and assumptions that they base a lot of their legislative discussions on don't seem to make any sense at all.
  - skizm 3y ago
    Eh, that’s kind of like saying banning guns is pointless because criminals will still get them. Banning tools is effective even if there are “easy” workarounds, but in this case it will end up hurting law abiding citizens more than protecting them.
- throwaway67743 3y ago
  Secret chats would probably be subject to this, not the platform as a whole though, no
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nerdbert 3y ago
  They have to leave the UK if they're concerned about forking over 10% of their turnover as a penalty for failure to comply, but that means nothing if they're out of reach of UK courts, or a decentralized volunteer organization. Plenty of ways to offer end to end encrypted chats to UK users without having an office in Shoreditch.
welshwelsh 3y ago
I think the intention here is just to keep the undesirables from interacting with the general population. Unfortunately, banning something from the App Store and the Google Play Store is enough to stop most people from using it. Wrongthinkers might move to Telegram, but they still need to use mainstream platforms to get new recruits.
sjy 3y ago
If the terrorists and child sexual abusers move to Telegram or some other more underground app, the Online Safety Bill will have partly achieved its purpose: to make social media safer for normal people using mainstream social networks. Currently we rely on the content policy and moderation staff of big tech companies to censor the surprising amount of illegal content that is constantly posted on social media [1]. The UK government wants to assume more control over this process with new powers that are legally restricted to what is "necessary and proportionate." They don't expect this to inconvenience the rest of the electorate, they expect it to reduce crime and other online harms. [1]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/973939/Online_Harms_White_Paper_V2.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

gavaw 3y ago

As the article says, this bill is not targeting whatsapp specifically. Any other e2e-encrypted chat app will have to leave the UK as well. (Which Telegram isn't, btw)

Aromasin 3y ago
I read that in the article and meant to scratch Signal off the list but never did. Fixed now. The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  You mean people committing crimes will also commit a crime to commit those crimes? I never thought of that. Such clever criminals. The above statement is absurd right? I'm legitimately asking because I feel as though I must be missing something. Maybe it will stop a few folks and that is the victory? I think the new entries learning that the technology is working might be more numerous than the people who get stopped. Pedos read news don't they?
  - kevincox 3y ago
    This is the reason that the IRS asks you to declare your illegal income. It can be used as a tool to make catching crimes easier. If using encrypted communication is illegal then they can just ding all of the criminals for that, or their criminal activities are harder to operate because they need to hide existence of communication from law enforcement, not only the contents. If it is legal then they have to 1. identify who is doing other crimes 2. prove those crimes. So the more crimes that criminals need to perform to get their "valuable" crimes committed the more likely it is that they get caught for something. I don't believe at all that the means justify the ends, and I think the ends in this case will be only a very minor bother for criminals. But there is some logic to this concept.
- tailspin2019 3y ago
  > The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team. Totally agree. This is partly what makes me so frustrated with this sort of legislation, because the technical arguments and assumptions that they base a lot of their legislative discussions on don't seem to make any sense at all.
- skizm 3y ago
  Eh, that’s kind of like saying banning guns is pointless because criminals will still get them. Banning tools is effective even if there are “easy” workarounds, but in this case it will end up hurting law abiding citizens more than protecting them.
throwaway67743 3y ago
Secret chats would probably be subject to this, not the platform as a whole though, no
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nerdbert 3y ago
They have to leave the UK if they're concerned about forking over 10% of their turnover as a penalty for failure to comply, but that means nothing if they're out of reach of UK courts, or a decentralized volunteer organization. Plenty of ways to offer end to end encrypted chats to UK users without having an office in Shoreditch.

welshwelsh 3y ago

I think the intention here is just to keep the undesirables from interacting with the general population. Unfortunately, banning something from the App Store and the Google Play Store is enough to stop most people from using it. Wrongthinkers might move to Telegram, but they still need to use mainstream platforms to get new recruits.

sjy 3y ago

If the terrorists and child sexual abusers move to Telegram or some other more underground app, the Online Safety Bill will have partly achieved its purpose: to make social media safer for normal people using mainstream social networks. Currently we rely on the content policy and moderation staff of big tech companies to censor the surprising amount of illegal content that is constantly posted on social media [1]. The UK government wants to assume more control over this process with new powers that are legally restricted to what is "necessary and proportionate." They don't expect this to inconvenience the rest of the electorate, they expect it to reduce crime and other online harms. [1]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/973939/Online_Harms_White_Paper_V2.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...