16 ms·

Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

• freitzkriesler2 3y ago
  Leave the UK and never come back. I don't know why more tech companies not do this when a government gets uppity about what it thinks they can and cannot do.
  • DaSHacka 3y ago
    Well yeah that's basically what she's saying Signal's gonna do...
    • freitzkriesler2 3y ago
      I know, Can you blame em?
• chmod600 3y ago
  The water flowed under this bridge 20 years ago. This whole discussion seems like it’s happening in the wrong decade. The issue now is that it’s so easy to collect circumstantial information that is constantly leaked by GPS-enabled apps, searches, card purchases, clicks, cell phone tower data, etc. that governments don’t really need the actual contents of messages any more. I’m still glad Signal exists, but it’s part of a very complex world of privacy and not magical armor.
  • motohagiography 3y ago
    I wore a "this t-shirt is a munition" tee back in the day. With a quarter century of hindsight, I think encryption as a privacy tool may not have been a solution, but a sedative that prevented the smartest people from seeing how bad things really were and applying their courage to those problems.
    • chmod600 3y ago
      What would we have done differently? All this stuff is really convenient. Would we have really said “no” to turn-by-turn navigation? Avoided online purchases? Used cash for most of our transactions? Printed things out so we don’t use the internet while outside?
      • kelnos 3y ago
        I think the problem is a pretty old one: you can't use technology to solve social problems. Encryption as a tool is great for some particular kinds of privacy, but using encryption to "fix" privacy was misguided from the start. Privacy is a policy problem; we need laws on the books that prevent both governments and companies from collecting and using data about us. Rules like the US Constitution's 4th amendment, and laws like the GDPR (and to some extent, CCPA/CPRA) aim to do that, but neither goes anywhere near far enough. 4A often gets interpreted narrowly by US courts, to the benefit of law enforcement. And the GDPR enforcement mechanisms are far too clunky and -- at least from what I've seen so far -- don't work particularly well. Not to mention that, for it to be truly effective globally, the US would need a federal-level law to match it. Encryption alone doesn't matter. If your social and political climate is not oriented toward privacy, your privacy tools can simply be made illegal.
        • frabbit 3y ago
          In some ways the faithful seeking the grail of "encryption" which will protect them from the Evil mirrors the belief of earlier generations that a Constitution is enough on its own. Nothing is meaningful without the physical and social power to enforce it. When you have that then even the absurd becomes reality and common sense.
      • motohagiography 3y ago
        You could have recognized that if you even think you need Tor and Signal to protect yourself from your own government, you need to organize politically to install representatives who ensure you don't think you need those things. We overlook that young people with tech jobs in the 90's humiliated a lot of their peers, ones who went on to pursue messy politcal careers instead of business ones. Those peers learned to hate the knowledge that gave a lot of economic advantages to tech people, and the principles we ultimately used to morally justify it. Privacy, freedom, and anonymity separated us from the all against all power game of elite competition that ran on gossip, compromise, narrative, and mainly a lot of guile. As art, I think the season five finale of Rick & Morty captured the dynamic pretty well, where Sanchez represents the freedom and security of competence and technology that, more concretely, allowed a lot of genX to disengage from the messy political game represented as the family life of people who didn't have the benefits those skills conferred. While he shares them, in the world of the story, they are still always his. The evil Morty character is a millenial child politician who believes he can have all those benefits for himself immediately and today instead of waiting to develop and inherit them with time - if he just decieves and betrays Sanchez and destroys the world in which his story (history, get it) represents the ideal he has to live up to to recieve them. Evil Morty the politician doesn't want to be a steward, he wants to be his own god becase the one his grandfather represents is humiliating to him. Where we are now is that we have these politicains who are actuated by the shame of their impostor syndromes and their envy of the true popular desire that the products of competence provide. These X'ers can't get a 100 person rally going, but some hacker in a basement can do some magic and suddenly actuate the desire of billions like some kind of rockstar without the gatekeepers. That's what this legislation is about. It's the coup de grace by a resentful pretender elite who have been taken in by people older and much more dangerous than they could ever have percieved.
• _8j50 3y ago
  > “You cannot create a back door that only the good guys can go through,” Alright, technical argument here. This is false and tech talking heads are spreading this lie for ideological reasons. You don't need to backdoor the protocol, just the specific targeted client. Now, if Signal said this is unfair because competitors won't also backdoor their app then I am with them. What the UK should probably have done is to force phone makers as opposed to app makers to facilitate a backdoor. Signal can scan messages before encryption and report to the authorities just fine. Whatever the UK government desires, Signal should accept it as the will of the UK people, especially given that politicians' stance on this has been public and endured election cycles. I do get their stance, people will stop using them if they cave in and the UK gov should know that as well. I don't know UK law but dragnet surveillance is illegal in the US but targeted warrantful requests to backdoor apps is lawful.
  • chacham15 3y ago
    I didnt read that as a technical argument, but as a sociological one. If there are two apps, one which is easy/legal to obtain, but has a backdoor and another which may be harder/illegal to obtain but has no backdoor, which is the bad guy going to choose? Unless you can somehow force every app to use the backdoor, you cant make the bad guy go through it. Therefore, "You cannot create a back door that only the good guys can go through"
    • _8j50 3y ago
      The proposal is to scan every message and report if only there is a match. What bad guy can possibly take advantage of that without coercing Signal? And if Signal can be coerced, they can backdoor it all to begin with. Call it a feature instead if a backdoor if it sounds better lol. Control of the list which is used to scan your messages has the same security properties as the code of signal itself and a threat actor that can exploit the system must control both that and access the match reporting system (signal servers). An actor that controls these does not need to abuse this system, it would be easier to just push a rat alongside signal. > "You cannot create a back door that only the good guys can go through" Perhaps for crypto protocols. Software systems do this all the time in form of software updates, usage monitoring and even unattended remote support accounts. And also, just because it might be possible to find a vuln in a system in the future that does not mean it is vulnerable at the time of design. Not only are clean backdoors possible, software engineers can design them cleanly and make them sound nice and fluffy when they are the ones accessing the backdoor.
• pacifika 3y ago
  Hasn’t Apple already shown it’s possible to add another party silently to an encrypted exchange? > Passwords: Users can now create a group to share a set of passwords. Everyone in a group can add and edit passwords to keep them up to date, and since sharing is through iCloud Keychain, it’s end-to-end encrypted. So there goes the backdoor encryption argument, it’s possible to add another member to a group of people with on device access?
  • dreamcompiler 3y ago
    Adding backdoors to crypto algorithms is easy. What's impossible is ensuring the backdoors can only be used by the good guys. What's also impossible is ensuring the good guys don't abuse their backdoors and thus become bad guys.
  • enigmurl 3y ago
    Isnt this more analogous to an end-to-end encrypted group chat than a backdoor?
    • immibis 3y ago
      Secretly turning every two-party encrypted conversation into a three-party encrypted conversation is a backdoor.
  • tcfhgj 3y ago
    Apple is developing the whole OS, they can always snoop, because everything is closed source. Also I loud backup isn't e2ee anyways
    • godelski 3y ago
      > because everything is closed source We have to be clear that closed source doesn't imply vulnerabilities. It just means it is hard to check. But we are also talking about one of the most researched devices w.r.t. security. If a backdoor is ever found, boy will there be hell to pay and I'm pretty sure Apple shares will take a really big hit. Especially as they've pivoted their marketing towards privacy.
• markuta 3y ago
  No paywall: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Ffortune.com%2F2023%2F07%2F13%2Fsignal-president-mass-surveillance-uk-law%2F https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Ffortune.com%2F2023%2F0...
• clcaev 3y ago
  Don't forget to https://signal.org/donate/ https://signal.org/donate/
  • _TwoFinger 3y ago
    And to https://community.signalusers.org/ https://community.signalusers.org/
  • frabbit 3y ago
    No. Signal is not the solution. The position that they are taking publicly in this dispute with the UK vassal state is correct on the face of it. But they now have some people on their board that raise red flags for anyone interested in privacy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36346396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36346396
    • s3p 3y ago
      Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Unless you have a well-known, more powerful alternative organization that we can donate to, this is the solution for right now.
      • frabbit 3y ago
        Signal Corp is doing just fine. Those donations would have a much bigger effect for the people developing Matrix and associated applications.
• gorgoiler 3y ago
  It’s good that Whittaker is taking a stand, but it would be nice to not have to take her word for it. Reproducible builds would help, but I don’t think we have those on iOS yet?: https://community.signalusers.org/t/add-reproducible-builds-to-the-ios-app/20516/7 https://community.signalusers.org/t/add-reproducible-builds-...
  • nicce 3y ago
    It is up to the Apple to decide to provide packages as unencrypted for everyone to access and verify. Once they do that, yes.
• ipv6ipv4 3y ago
  This is the lasting legacy of Apple’s CSAM photo scanning debacle. Apple mainstreamed the concept, demoed the dystopian tool, and legitimized the discourse of this dystopian insanity. Apple executives should be ashamed of their direct role in this.
  • disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    Nah, this has been coming (and inevitable really) since Snowden prompted the tech companies to introduce e2e messaging. Note that similar laws are being proposed in the UK, EU Australia and Canada (not sure of the latter two tbh).
    • ipv6ipv4 3y ago
      The idea of pervasive spying has been around forever. The want, and why. Apple mainstreamed, normalized the discourse, and demoed the concept of pre-scanning in the face of E2E. Apple provided the answer for the how.
      • throw47474777j 3y ago
        Apple didn’t mainstream anything, indeed they withdrew the plan after the discourse was overwhelmingly opposed to the idea.
        • frabbit 3y ago
          [flagged]
      • sshff 3y ago
        Apple tried to come up with a method to still do e2e and also scan for CSAM, a noble goal if grossly flawed. It blew up in their face so they did the right thing and canned it. Before that this sort of legislation was just straight asking for a skeleton key or a ban on e2e, many laws still do. Apple trying a thing and failing didn’t fundamentally change anything because these laws aren’t asking for a specific technology, they’re asking to be able to see all your messages no matter the method. That’s literally the politicians level of understanding “want read read messages”. If Apple had never thought up the CSAM scanner concept they’d still be pushing to just break the encryption. Hell they may even stumble upon the “well just send us a copy or scan it for all these fingerprints before you encrypt it” concept themselves, it’s not really a tough concept.
• jononomo 3y ago
  How can the Signal app "exit the UK market"? Can't people just use the app anyway?
  • leesalminen 3y ago
    There's a couple ways: - Signal could just ban all UK IP addresses from accessing its messaging servers. Your encrypted messages still pass through servers controlled by Signal, Inc. - UK government could require ISPs to deny access to Signal's messaging servers. Of course, one could just use a VPN, set up a VM in a third country and run a Signal Proxy Server, etc. It was hard enough getting family/friends to download/use Signal, as its UX is sub-par compared to alternatives. If you start telling them they have to use a VPN, or run a server, etc, that will kill the network effect in UK.
    • immibis 3y ago
      Signal gets banned from the Google and Apple stores for UK users
    • godelski 3y ago
      I've also tried to urge the Signal community to develop things like a mesh networking because it can really help prevent such actions. I saw another user suggest an airdrop like functionality as a means to make the mesh networking features "fun" or at least of high value to users. I've given up on that community though and Signal just moves too slow. Moxie argued that they should maintain control because the ecosystem is moving but I'm pretty confident the ecosystem is moving a hell of a lot faster than they are. Realistically it looks like Apple is starting to become a better privacy app, except it isn't cross platform and likely never will be.
  • westernpopular 3y ago
    Even just removing it from that country's app store would mean 99% of people who might have used it otherwise won't use it. It doesn't need to be Impossible for the policy to be successful.
  • rstuart4133 3y ago
• JoeCohen 3y ago
  Imagine when your most effective countermeasure you have against encryption is authoritatively demanding others don't use it.
• Teckentrup 3y ago
  What does exit the UK market mean here though? Presumably that it won't appear in the Apple App Store or Google Play? Presumably that's more of an issue for the iOS ecosystem... But for android you just switch from using play to FDroid or an APK, right? I presume a sufficiently irked UK wouldn't be able to do anything more, as Signal already as ways of circumventing traffic blocking within specific states? Doesn't this just stop less motivated or technical folk getting signal... But for anyone motivated, or with nefarious intent, I don't see how this prevents anything the bill targets as a harm.
  • consumer451 3y ago
    > What does exit the UK market mean here though? Maybe just disable all accounts registered with +44 telephone numbers?
    • stjohnswarts 3y ago
      It would have to involve blocking known UK IP addresses as well as removing the app from British play/apple stores at a minimum.
  • leesalminen 3y ago
    Signal could block all UK IP addresses from accessing its messaging server. UK could require ISPs to block access to Signal messaging servers. Both of these are fairly trivial (my understanding is that UK already forces filtering on ISPs for e.g. pornography). Of course you are correct that anyone motivated and/or technical enough could still access Signal. However, their less motivated/less technical contacts won't be using it any longer. The government is basically asking the bad actors to self-identify through their continued use of Signal.
    • guy98238710 3y ago
      So perhaps a new UK-focused app that everyone sideloads?
      • 3y ago
• honeybadger1 3y ago
  This is part of the war against the lower classes. The ruling do not want to be excluded from the 'know'.
• TheCaptain4815 3y ago
  I've always wondered why politicians in America take similar stances (outside of a few like Rand Paul). Even a wild card like Trump should see how unpopular some of these policies are. Are the intelligence agencies really that influential?
  • kelnos 3y ago
    The problem is that they aren't as unpopular as you think. Once the government and media trot out the "think of the children" and "law and order" narratives, with a helping of "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide", a lot of people support legally mandated broken encryption. It's a lot harder to explain to the average voter the negative consequences this has on privacy, in a way that will actually make them upset about it. And many mainstream media agencies don't even bother to try.
    • TheCaptain4815 3y ago
      Maybe before, or in the aftermath of 9/11. But we haven’t seen a major candidate even attempt this since Rand never gets higher than a few percentages. I’d love to ask Obama why this wasn’t the case.
  • hackerlight 3y ago
    > Are the intelligence agencies really that influential? More like: Is the general public really scared of terrorism?
• bodge5000 3y ago
  I'm still banking on the hope that governments incompetence at dealing with other issues transfers to this one and delays it long enough for someone with some sense to come into office and rip it up. You'd hope that they'd at least try to deal with the cost of living crisis and the war in Ukraine first. Then again, Labour and almost all the major opposition parties have been quiet on this, not really doing the job of opposition, so even with that delay I'm not sure how much will change.
• boomer918 3y ago
  E2E apps and fully encrypted phones prevent the police from executing legitimate search warrants. This has never been the case with traditional communication mechanisms, e.g. phones, mail. I agree that privacy is important, but it's not absolute, by law. So what we're saying is E2E apps are more important than current law we have, and we want to invalidate the ability of the police to investigate crime. How can that make sense?
  • efnx 3y ago
    What folks are saying is that requiring a backdoor in encryption for “blessed” individuals is wrong. I can tell from your comment that you trust cops. Not all of us do (at least - not all of us trust all cops) and so we don’t want ANY cops to have a backdoor through EVERY encryption, for fear of what ONE of them may do, or ONE person in their chain of trust may do.
    • boomer918 3y ago
      Sounds like we need to change the law to make privacy absolute, which of course will prevent legitimate crime investigations. We can't have it both ways here.
      • efnx 3y ago
        > which of course will prevent legitimate crime investigations It would not prevent legitimate crime investigations, it would only keep that specific information obscured.
  • nerdbert 3y ago
    You think no nefarious actors have ever used coded messages or even one-time pads to communicate via phone and email before the digital age?
  • kenmacd 3y ago
    > e.g. phones, mail. What about all the in-person conversations. Seems those might be considered just a bit more traditional than phones conversations, and haven't been subject to those same search warrants. > So what we're saying is E2E apps are more important than current law we have, and we want to invalidate the ability of the police to investigate crime. > > How can that make sense? (*proposed* British online safety legislation) Let's expand on that then: how can it make sense what humans can have in-person conversations that are not subject to search warrants. These e2e-private-in-person conversations prevent the state from investigating crime. If police should be able to always access your digital information, would you support the same in the case of non-digital information. Should building codes be updated to require microphones be installed in very room? If you're not in support of microphones in every room, then please tell me why the conversation between two parties, be they lovers or criminals, should lose it's ability to be private the moment it crosses the internet?
• Jigsy 3y ago
  I personally won't use Signal because "Requires my phone number?" = Nope. But good on her for sticking with her principles. I did decide to use Session as a result of this bill, though, since that routes through a Tor-like system.
  • Zuiii 3y ago
    Briar is really good. Not only can it route over actual Tor (the default!), it can also be distributed, installed, and even used _completely_ offline^1. I'm genuinely impressed by the ingenuity and flexibility of this little marvel of an app. My only complaints are that it doesn't support sending arbitrary files, it can't route via the normal internet, and the UX is a bit "off" (e.g. read checkmarks don't have the semantics of their whatsapp counterpart despite looking the same). Whether it's natural disasters, wars, or just plain old internet , I bet many people will be extremely glad to know this app exists. [1]: It gives you an option to start a local server to share the app via hotspot and maybe bluetooth (not sure about this one). Accounts are created locally and are completely decentralized. Messages can be routed via local networks, bluetooth, and/or even carrier pigeons (via usb/sd cards).
• wnevets 3y ago
  If you outlaw encryption only outlaws will have encryption
• b1n 3y ago
  I wonder if the Signal app would be automatically uninstalled from existing iOS and Android devices? Hopefully the signal ban will demonstrate to enough people that they don't really own the phone in their pocket - if they don't control what's on it, they are just renting it.
• Longlius 3y ago
  I'm not sure why "mathematically impossible" is in quotes in the article. It is, in fact, mathematically impossible.
  • inopinatus 3y ago
    * * *
  • yazzku 3y ago
    Because it is, in fact, a quote.
• javajosh 3y ago
  It's a strange thing, today's world. There exists, right now, a realized panopticon in suspension. The only reason we don't have one is that we don't want one. Sometimes I think that politicians wait for a time when weighty things are on the table to erode our rights. Who is going to be a one-issue voter for something barely understood? And yet, in terms of governance, what issue is more important than this?
  • Arubis 3y ago
    > Sometimes I think that politicians wait for a time when weighty things are on the table to erode our rights. The USA PATRIOT act was pretty much written and ready to go when the 9/11 attacks occurred, and would have been impassable without some sort of disaster. Politicians absolutely are prepared to take advantage of opportunities, including to erode civil liberties if that’s their bent.
    • kuchenbecker 3y ago
      Never let a crisis go to waste. Next major SEV, have a couple docs ready on how to fix reliability and watch them get funded.
• gumballindie 3y ago
  I fail to understand what the uk is trying to achieve with its current ubiquitous surveillance. Crime in london is rampant, theft is nearly decriminalised in some areas, and now they want to monitor what people do on the internet? Other than docile tax payers what other potential goal is there? Services are steadily degrading, cost of living is out of control, quality of life dropping. Do they just want obedience, and apathetic population and nothing else?
  • blagie 3y ago
    The outcome I'm observing is isolationism. Brexit means that doing business with the UK is suddenly much more complex and expensive. Mandatory backdoors would break many products, and then products which rely on those products. The UK has 67 million people, or just under 1% of the world. What's cheaper: - Compliance (especially with unethical laws like this one); or - Dumping 1% of your customers? The flip side is that if I'm opening up a branch somewhere, will I do it somewhere where: - A bunch of my tools don't work, and I need to jump through a whole bunch of hoops? or - Just over the canal in France, across the Pacific in the US, or better yet, a little further over in some place like Czechia? As with many isolationist regimes, England is also among the most despised countries in the world. Ever seen the Clockwork Orange? England has done some nasty shit to a lot of people around the world. It has no shortage of enemies, but it seems to be isolating itself from its former friends.... I'm waiting to see how this whole thing plays out, but I'm not bullish on the UK. If things go the way I think, I'd feel bad for Scotland. They'll have zero percent of the fault, and fully share in the consequences.
    • rahimnathwani 3y ago
      If things go the way I think, I'd feel bad for Scotland. They'll have zero percent of the fault, and fully share in the consequences. Why feel bad for folks in Scotland in particular? Why not for the folks in London (a larger, more geographically concentrated group, which also voted to remain)? (Not being snarky - I'm genuinely curious.)
      • blagie 3y ago
• stjohnswarts 3y ago
  This is great news. Sorry for my british compatriots. I guess get a VPN?
• quantum_state 3y ago
  The government could deem the measure is for national security. So far, has there been a case against the government in court for “unnecessary national security”?
• darklycan51 3y ago
  I'll post a comment which will probably not be that popular, I don't trust signal... I'll risk going conspiracy theorist here but to me it's just a govt backed/cia backed alternative to telegram when telegram started gaining heavy ground
  • game_the0ry 3y ago
    You're not the only one - I entertain that possibly as well. Islamic terrorist, international crime rings, political dissidents all use telegram. I am not aware of any serious criminal orgs that use Signal.
• pstuart 3y ago
  Perhaps the proponents of this can demonstrate how it works and make sure all their communications are scanned and sent to a "trusted party".
• bertman 3y ago
  https://archive.is/YVkyP https://archive.is/YVkyP
• semiquaver 3y ago
  Governments seem to want to have it both ways. As new technologies are introduced they assume that capabilities and practices available to analogous predecessors must remain available to them (e.g. wire-tapping phones => undermining cryptography) but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced (anonymous cash transactions => ???) It also seems like there’s a tendency to relitigate battles that are lost. I assume the UK had some equivalent to the 90s crypto wars in the US where attempts to weaken and backdoor crypto by legal means were pretty decisively defeated. It’s sad that precedents should only accrue to one side’s benefit.
  • safety1st 3y ago
    Then these governments have forgotten that they serve at the pleasure of the people. We permit them to exist specifically for the purpose of protecting our rights, not expanding their own. The rights we possess are inherent and automatic because we're human beings, they are not granted by government or anyone else, and if a government fails to aid us in preserving them, that government is no longer legitimate. Jefferson said all this far better than I ever could: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."
    • Mountain_Skies 3y ago
      We live in an era where increasingly it is the government who picks the voters rather than the voters picking the government. Whether it is through immigration policy, favoring certain areas over others, or trying to throw up restrictions on voting, across the political spectrum there is a dedicated effort to shape the electorate to be friendly to those in power remaining in power.
      • raincom 3y ago
• cwales95 3y ago
  Related post from 10 days ago which goes into more depth on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36596610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36596610 TL;DR: UK government wants to degrade public's right to privacy / encryption under the guise of "but think of the children!"
  • zirgs 3y ago
    What about the privacy of children? I don't want some creeps reading their messages.
    • DaSHacka 3y ago
      Well, consider what job a creep who loves to invade children's privacy would have.
  • guy98238710 3y ago
    One could easily argue that bullying in school is a much more widespread threat to children and the government is okay with that.
  • Slava_Propanei 3y ago
    [dead]
  • squarefoot 3y ago
    > under the guise of "but think of the children!" Hah, then it's the usual scaremongering that recycles the same old excuses again and again. https://i.imgur.com/D93heEo.jpg https://i.imgur.com/D93heEo.jpg
• motohagiography 3y ago
  Her television interview with the former(?) minister responsible for this abomination of a law was urgent and necessary. These legislators know what they are doing, and that it is unethical. Let Signal leave the UK market. If the people want freedom, let them take it themselves. Perhaps before this generation of young men are rounded up for another one of history's meat grinders in Ukraine, as a means to further reduce domestic resistance to the new agenda. What new words can be written that would suddenly enlighten the managers of that government and deter it from its course of fully atomizing its citizens? I'd suggest the greatest service Signal could do for the people of the UK is to suspend operations in the market preemptively. Turn into the torpedo. The thing about totalitarianism is that the longer people believe they are safe from it, the deeper its roots dig in.
  • ahzhou 3y ago
    Your insinuation that the UK will implement a Ukraine war draft in order to advance a totalitarian agenda is weird, unnecessarily conspiratorial, and dilutes your point. I encourage you to make one point and to make it well.
    • mcpackieh 3y ago
      As long as conscription laws remain on the books, it should never be taboo to worry about those laws being put into practice.
      • meepmorp 3y ago
        I don't think the point was that it is or should be taboo to talk about the possibility that conscription laws would be used, just that the particular context in which it's been brought up makes it weird. It sounds like fringy conspiratorial silliness, especially considering the utter lack of any evidence that western countries are considering actual combat operations in Ukraine. Or maybe a bit of propaganda. It's reasonable for people who want to seriously address the very real and legitimate problems with this kind of "wiretap" legislation to not want extraneous issues derailing the discussion, as having their concerns conflated with more conspiratorial-sounding ones makes them far easier to dismiss.
• andy_ppp 3y ago
  Who persuades politicians it’s a good idea for the security services to be able to scan all their messages? I am absolutely certain that the politicians have absolutely no clue what they’re being asked to implement.
  • martin8412 3y ago
    The laws don't apply to politicians, in fact they're explicitly excluded.
    • Hizonner 3y ago
      In practice, they often use the same services as everybody else, even for official business that they're not supposed to use them for. Sometimes they do that to intentionally try to get around archiving and transparency rules. Other times they do it because they're clueless and/or lazy. Those services don't know that an account belongs to a politician or that they're using it for exempt purposes. Politicians are ALWAYS getting nailed by leaks from various computer-based communication systems that they use. Most of them don't seem to be able to get their heads around how any of this work.
      • PartiallyTyped 3y ago
        The sad thing is that if any hacker was to show to the politicians what their actions entail, the hacker would get branded a criminal, and the politician's ratings would go up.
  • wellthisisgreat 3y ago
    Most of them are what the majority of non-politicians would consider “evil”. Those who go into that profession are longing to control other people by means of the monopoly of violence that the government has. That MP in the interview is what happens when you give the power to knock down doors and arrest people to somone who likes to get into argument about ethics with people in the news site comment section.
  • immibis 3y ago
• ciwolsey 3y ago
  For other UK citizens: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/634725 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/634725
  • dijit 3y ago
    Goodness, I hate to be this guy, but do these petitions ever actually help? I can’t think of one that I’ve followed up to the debate that has been successful in anything except getting a solid “no” from the sitting government. Direct action, enough to be villainised by the media, seems to be the only way that politicians will actually listen — though even then its a massive uphill struggle. God, I feel so unrepresented.
    • kelnos 3y ago
      > God, I feel so unrepresented. American here, but I feel the same way. I live in California, and I'm left-leaning, but I feel like I have no voice. This state -- and my city -- have so many problems, but I don't feel like I have any effect on the politicians who are failing to solve them. And that's bad enough without getting into how powerless I feel to affect anything at a national level.
      • antigonemerlin 3y ago
        For the past few decades, Americans, and especially college-educated professionals, have been sold a distorted view of politics that essentially amounts to watching sports. Most of us have never seen a working example of democracy. We have just sort of tacitly accepted a kind of benevolent dictatorship in most institutions, from our workplace to open-source (and please correct me if I'm wrong here, I know that there is a kind of democracy in forking and collaboration, but as I understand it, voting democracy isn't really found anywhere.) I was just watching Car 54 where are you? the other night, and in it, you can see the members of a fictional police union voting on absolutely everything, from union dues, to where to host the christmas dinner. People voted, made speeches, and ran for office, and all of this within like a tiny local. This kind of general participatory democracy seems as quaint as the black and white film it's played on. My advice to you is to join something. There's a number of civics activists trying to push for some local issue, like transit, or housing, or raising funds for a local hospital; all else failing, you could always volunteer for your local party and get to know the candidate. It's a really good salve to that feeling of general powerlessness. Then, instead of feeling powerless, you'll know you're mostly powerless, but at the very least, you won't be alone.
• karaterobot 3y ago
  > “I think what has happened over the you know, handful of decades in which the surveillance business model has interpolated our core infrastructure — to the point that we’re surveilled in to an extent we don’t have a sense of — is that that choice has been made for us,” Whittaker said. This is an honest question: did she mean to say "infiltrated", or is this usage of "interpolated" a valid one that I just don't understand? I expected a [sic] or an edit from the article.
  • phdelightful 3y ago
    Interpolate: to alter or corrupt by inserting foreign matter; but I have only seen it used this way for text
    • kalupa 3y ago
      TIL the alternate meaning of interpolate. Thank you!
  • mock-possum 3y ago
    Definitely infiltrated.
  • tomtheelder 3y ago
    That’s a less common meaning of the word interpolated, meaning to change, usually with the connotation of corrupting. Typically I see it used to describe text, but it makes sense here too.