6 ms·

Her television interview with the former(?) minister responsible for this abomination of a law was urgent and necessary. These legislators know what they are do

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.
  - etothepii 3y ago
    I don't think you understand anything about the British system if you think that "removing laws from the books" matters at all. As demonstrated by COVID regulations in emergency the law can be changed very quickly. Modern armies (like NATO members) have really got very little to gain by conscription. Being a modern soldier has very little to do with being cannon fodder.
    - ghklqa 3y ago
      Modern warfare against insurgents, where CNN broadcasts the night vision green victory footage. Unfortunately, in Ukraine both sides are cannon fodder again because modern anti air defenses are so good that the fighting relies on 155mm howitzers again. Which NATO has just run out of and has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities.
      - gumballindie 3y ago
        > has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities. That’s scary. If 31 countries cant get their act together to manufacture basic weapons then we are in no better shape than russia. Should they win the war in ukraine and decide to attack other countries we’d be caught with our pants down.
        AdrianB1 3y ago
        You can easily build capacities, but it requires will and money, both are missing.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Unfortunately, in Ukraine both sides are cannon fodder again because modern anti air defenses are so good that the fighting relies on 155mm howitzers again. Which NATO has just run out of and has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities. To be fair it appears that Russia is using 10x more shells then they manufacture in a year so once they run out of their old soviet stock pile things will go south for them.
      - ric2b 3y ago
  - Tade0 3y ago
    I had defense readiness classes in high school back when there was still debate in my country whether to phase out conscription (which eventually happened) and our teacher, a retired colonel(who was against phasing it out), told us one thing that stuck with me: Conscripts are only good for defense - they know the area and the local language/customs. Additionally, they stand to lose their friends, family and possessions, so they're motivated to do something about that. None of these advantages apply on the offense.
- motohagiography 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - vogon_laureate 3y ago
    Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
    - salawat 3y ago
      Wrong. This was a Wendys. It is now a public forum. En garde! Besides which, if you get to use it for poetry readings, I reserve the right to air my polemic before you commit your war crime on literature everywhere.
  - 3form 3y ago
    I wish you were aware how the thing that you just wrote reads from someone else's perspective. Anyway, it would be nice if you were open to actually propose some points that support your theories, rather than making a long-winded case about that people know nothing. You mentioning that: > end state of totalitarian movements requires a liquidation mechanism via war. isn't such a point, because it leaves the readers to guess why would you think so. For me, at best, I can assume you say so because it happened historically, but neither you say that, nor does an argument from history make for a really good one.
frabbit 3y ago
With the recent board changes in Signal (Katherine Maher and other people highly associated with the government of the USA) it is reasonable to assume that it compromised in some way. The UK probably recognizes this and wants to make it a little bit harder for US diplomats to evade interception. Meanwhile France and Germany will use Element Matrix.
immibis 3y ago
I wasn't aware the Russian army was recruiting from the UK?
- int_19h 3y ago
  Wagner does.
- Xarodon 3y ago
  Are we just being obtuse now? Is that what we're doing?
  - grayhatter 3y ago
    responding to hyperbole with hyperbole is appropriate isn't it?
  - ciwolsey 3y ago
    I think he's genuinely confused, and as a citizen of the UK, so am I..
  - thatguy0900 3y ago
    The alternative is the UK drafting people to fight in ukraine, which also makes 0 sense?
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Obviously the concern is an escalation of that war which pulls NATO into the conflict fully. I don't believe that's a likely scenario, but being deliberately obtuse isn't the right way address that somebody expressing that concern.
      - immibis 3y ago
        Russia nuking NATO? What is Signal encryption supposed to have to do with it?
throw0101a 3y ago
> Her television interview […] Channel 4 News segment: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--bVV_eQR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--bVV_eQR0 The MP, Damian Collins, "who formerly served as a junior Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Collins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Collins Reminder: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Thanks very much for posting that interview. I thought it was good (and honestly impressed that it was quite respectful communication all the way around, as opposed to so often what I see as "debates" on TV), but I admit I got super frustrated to the point I could only watch half of it because nobody wanted to clearly admit to the other side's quite obvious point. I think the Signal president was making great points, but she definitely was avoiding a clear response when asked about "If people are sharing CSAM on your platform, you wouldn't know about it, correct?" and "If people are violating your ToS, how would you enforce that?" Obviously, the clearest direct answer is "Correct, we would have no way of knowing what content is being shared on our service." She complained about "circling the drain on the issue", but the reason they were circling is that she didn't want to say that sentence. And I get it, in today's day and age news organizations love to take a quote out of context and make it the headline ("Signal president admits they can't enforce their ToS against illegal material!!") But debates like this are a waste of time when both sides refuse to admit the obvious implications of the other side's points: 1. The Signal president was making very clear there is no "halfway" encryption, that it either works or it doesn't, and the bill required a back door. The government minister was pretending and talking loads of BS about what "options the regulator has", even while conceding the point that you can't have a backdoor that only "the good guys" can use. What an exercise in cognitive dissonance. 2. The Signal president obviously knew "Yes, people can share CSAM on our service and we can't directly know about that content", but (and I think for good reasons) didn't want to say that obvious point out loud. This debate would make more sense if both sides would just admit there is no "halfway compromise" to this issue. I agree with another comment that Apple really fucked up by thinking their "fingerprinting" approach was technically viable, and that somewhat poisoned the well in this debate.
crossroadsguy 3y ago
[flagged]
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  >being ruled by a family Nice hyperbole. Western monarchs have no real political power. They're just figureheads whose wealth is continually financed by the state. Which is stupid, but they're not rulers of anything other than their own lavish properties.
  - CaptainMarvel 3y ago
    Utter rubbish. Prime ministers have long held weekly audiences with the monarch. The monarch has the right to review legislation before it is put to parliament. That mechanism has been used to change laws - in your lifetime, on this side of the century. These are just three examples from the top of my head.
    - borski 3y ago
      > That mechanism has been used to change laws - in your lifetime, on this side of the century. I have no bone to pick, not knowing anything about the royal family, but do you have any examples of this happening?
      - avianlyric 3y ago
        There’s a number of UK laws with odd carve-outs for the royal family. A notable one is the Equality Act where there is a carve-out that allows the Royal family to discriminate with its hiring practices in a way that would be illegal for any other organisation. I don’t think there are any examples of significant changes to provisional laws, but certainly tweaks to make sure the royal family doesn’t have to keep with the times.
        borski 3y ago
        Oh, sure - that I’d believe. The royal family has historically been the prototype for “above the law.” But I meant I wasn’t aware of any cases in which (in our lifetimes or relatively recently) the royal family had put their thumb on the scale of a law and had it modified in a way that changed it for the general citizenry of the UK.

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.
- etothepii 3y ago
  I don't think you understand anything about the British system if you think that "removing laws from the books" matters at all. As demonstrated by COVID regulations in emergency the law can be changed very quickly. Modern armies (like NATO members) have really got very little to gain by conscription. Being a modern soldier has very little to do with being cannon fodder.
  - ghklqa 3y ago
    Modern warfare against insurgents, where CNN broadcasts the night vision green victory footage. Unfortunately, in Ukraine both sides are cannon fodder again because modern anti air defenses are so good that the fighting relies on 155mm howitzers again. Which NATO has just run out of and has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      > has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities. That’s scary. If 31 countries cant get their act together to manufacture basic weapons then we are in no better shape than russia. Should they win the war in ukraine and decide to attack other countries we’d be caught with our pants down.
      - AdrianB1 3y ago
        You can easily build capacities, but it requires will and money, both are missing.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Unfortunately, in Ukraine both sides are cannon fodder again because modern anti air defenses are so good that the fighting relies on 155mm howitzers again. Which NATO has just run out of and has no capacity to manufacture in sufficient quantities. To be fair it appears that Russia is using 10x more shells then they manufacture in a year so once they run out of their old soviet stock pile things will go south for them.
    - ric2b 3y ago
- Tade0 3y ago
  I had defense readiness classes in high school back when there was still debate in my country whether to phase out conscription (which eventually happened) and our teacher, a retired colonel(who was against phasing it out), told us one thing that stuck with me: Conscripts are only good for defense - they know the area and the local language/customs. Additionally, they stand to lose their friends, family and possessions, so they're motivated to do something about that. None of these advantages apply on the offense.
motohagiography 3y ago
[flagged]
- vogon_laureate 3y ago
  Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
  - salawat 3y ago
    Wrong. This was a Wendys. It is now a public forum. En garde! Besides which, if you get to use it for poetry readings, I reserve the right to air my polemic before you commit your war crime on literature everywhere.
- 3form 3y ago
  I wish you were aware how the thing that you just wrote reads from someone else's perspective. Anyway, it would be nice if you were open to actually propose some points that support your theories, rather than making a long-winded case about that people know nothing. You mentioning that: > end state of totalitarian movements requires a liquidation mechanism via war. isn't such a point, because it leaves the readers to guess why would you think so. For me, at best, I can assume you say so because it happened historically, but neither you say that, nor does an argument from history make for a really good one.

frabbit 3y ago

With the recent board changes in Signal (Katherine Maher and other people highly associated with the government of the USA) it is reasonable to assume that it compromised in some way. The UK probably recognizes this and wants to make it a little bit harder for US diplomats to evade interception. Meanwhile France and Germany will use Element Matrix.

immibis 3y ago

I wasn't aware the Russian army was recruiting from the UK?

int_19h 3y ago
Wagner does.
Xarodon 3y ago
Are we just being obtuse now? Is that what we're doing?
- grayhatter 3y ago
  responding to hyperbole with hyperbole is appropriate isn't it?
- ciwolsey 3y ago
  I think he's genuinely confused, and as a citizen of the UK, so am I..
- thatguy0900 3y ago
  The alternative is the UK drafting people to fight in ukraine, which also makes 0 sense?
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Obviously the concern is an escalation of that war which pulls NATO into the conflict fully. I don't believe that's a likely scenario, but being deliberately obtuse isn't the right way address that somebody expressing that concern.
    - immibis 3y ago
      Russia nuking NATO? What is Signal encryption supposed to have to do with it?

throw0101a 3y ago

> Her television interview […] Channel 4 News segment: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--bVV_eQR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--bVV_eQR0 The MP, Damian Collins, "who formerly served as a junior Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Collins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Collins Reminder: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Thanks very much for posting that interview. I thought it was good (and honestly impressed that it was quite respectful communication all the way around, as opposed to so often what I see as "debates" on TV), but I admit I got super frustrated to the point I could only watch half of it because nobody wanted to clearly admit to the other side's quite obvious point. I think the Signal president was making great points, but she definitely was avoiding a clear response when asked about "If people are sharing CSAM on your platform, you wouldn't know about it, correct?" and "If people are violating your ToS, how would you enforce that?" Obviously, the clearest direct answer is "Correct, we would have no way of knowing what content is being shared on our service." She complained about "circling the drain on the issue", but the reason they were circling is that she didn't want to say that sentence. And I get it, in today's day and age news organizations love to take a quote out of context and make it the headline ("Signal president admits they can't enforce their ToS against illegal material!!") But debates like this are a waste of time when both sides refuse to admit the obvious implications of the other side's points: 1. The Signal president was making very clear there is no "halfway" encryption, that it either works or it doesn't, and the bill required a back door. The government minister was pretending and talking loads of BS about what "options the regulator has", even while conceding the point that you can't have a backdoor that only "the good guys" can use. What an exercise in cognitive dissonance. 2. The Signal president obviously knew "Yes, people can share CSAM on our service and we can't directly know about that content", but (and I think for good reasons) didn't want to say that obvious point out loud. This debate would make more sense if both sides would just admit there is no "halfway compromise" to this issue. I agree with another comment that Apple really fucked up by thinking their "fingerprinting" approach was technically viable, and that somewhat poisoned the well in this debate.

crossroadsguy 3y ago

[flagged]

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
>being ruled by a family Nice hyperbole. Western monarchs have no real political power. They're just figureheads whose wealth is continually financed by the state. Which is stupid, but they're not rulers of anything other than their own lavish properties.
- CaptainMarvel 3y ago
  Utter rubbish. Prime ministers have long held weekly audiences with the monarch. The monarch has the right to review legislation before it is put to parliament. That mechanism has been used to change laws - in your lifetime, on this side of the century. These are just three examples from the top of my head.
  - borski 3y ago
    > That mechanism has been used to change laws - in your lifetime, on this side of the century. I have no bone to pick, not knowing anything about the royal family, but do you have any examples of this happening?
    - avianlyric 3y ago
      There’s a number of UK laws with odd carve-outs for the royal family. A notable one is the Equality Act where there is a carve-out that allows the Royal family to discriminate with its hiring practices in a way that would be illegal for any other organisation. I don’t think there are any examples of significant changes to provisional laws, but certainly tweaks to make sure the royal family doesn’t have to keep with the times.
      - borski 3y ago
        Oh, sure - that I’d believe. The royal family has historically been the prototype for “above the law.” But I meant I wasn’t aware of any cases in which (in our lifetimes or relatively recently) the royal family had put their thumb on the scale of a law and had it modified in a way that changed it for the general citizenry of the UK.