4 ms·

I'm curious how many companies will just block the UK rather than comply. It's definitely not going to be zero.

miohtama 3y ago
- Whatsapp (Meta) - Signal - Apple https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-ministers-lock-horns-with-whatsapp-over-threat-to-break-encryption/ https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-ministers-lock-horns-with...
- sacnoradhq 3y ago
  WhatsApp requires a phone number, implicitly deanonymizing you. It also lacked e2ee for a long time. Signal requires a phone number. Use the fork Session that generates anonymous identifiers. https://getsession.org https://getsession.org Apple participated in PRISM and also requires an identifier such as an email address or phone number.
  - adhvaryu 3y ago
    E2E encryption means that the content of the messages you send are encrypted. Requiring a SIM card to sign-up doesn't kill that feature.
  - felixg3 3y ago
    Anonymity is not equivalent to privacy, although lots of characteristics overlap.
  - anothernewdude 3y ago
    phone numbers cost like $5. phone numbers don't deanonymize you.
    - sickill 3y ago
      In EU they do.
  - Knee_Pain 3y ago
    ... and?
- hardlianotion 3y ago
  Would be amusing if British ministers could no longer use WhatsApp. They seem to be addicted to it.
- pauby 3y ago
  Meta and Apple will come to and arrangement. Signal will not. I'm not sure how I feel about any of that.
  - zahllos 3y ago
    Agree entirely. Meta and Apple will make a lot of noise but ultimately neither will want to lose the UK market.
- agilob 3y ago
  Have they quit Australian market?
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Do they even have to block UK users? Can't they just remove any business presence in the country to free themselves from any potential legal troubles?
- deno 3y ago
  Blocking UK users is removing business presence. How else would you go about it?
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    I mean having users in the country without having a business incorporated in the country, therefore there's no entity the Government has any jurisdiction over.
    - deno 3y ago
      If you accept business from UK customers and take their money or data you need to comply with UK law, as well as collect & pay VAT to the UK. This is more obvious in meatspace, for example it’s obvious that Chinese companies are not allowed to send children toys containing lead to EU markets. Your country of incorporation likely has an international free trade agreement with UK that you can read for details. Basically, you only need to incorporate in UK or establish a foreign branch if you need offices in UK or want to hire someone from UK (even remotely). The only way to opt-out is to block UK users.
      - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
        > need to comply Define "need". If there's no legal jurisdiction, where is this "need"? If a company wants to follow the rules, sure, it will so the thing. But otherwise, is there international legal jurisdiction that covers, for example, a company in Seychelles offering e2e encrypted comms that has users in the UK? Isn't it up to the UK to put in place blocking technology or laws that prohibit specific app usage? I'm kinda thinking about the US TikTok situation. What if the service is free, like Signal and WhatsApp? (and TikTok)
jossclimb 3y ago
The whole thing will fail once they realise how impossible this is to implement.
- djaychela 3y ago
  I wish that were true, but I doubt it. They'll carry on, as they have in other self-immolating ways.
- mdekkers 3y ago
  > The whole thing will fail once they realise how impossible this is to implement. Uhhm…. Brexit? These clowns (and not just this specific bunch, the entire UK political class) did Brexit, do you really think a small thing like the feasibility of this law will stop them?
  - radiator 3y ago
    What do you mean "these clowns did Brexit"? All they did was to organize a referendum. Why does this make them clowns in your eyes?
    - yungporko 3y ago
      yeah all they did is organise a referendum and then work tirelessly to ram lies and propaganda down the entire country's throat to make damn sure it passes.
    - adammarples 3y ago
      Just in case you're not british, no that's not what they did. They organised a referendum, voted in parliament to follow through on the vote, then spent 5 years negotiating pretty much the most damaging version of an exit that they could, burnt bridges with the EU, signed an agreement on the border with Ireland which they then decided to renege on, trashed our trade with the EU through failure to compromise on anything, failed to prepare our ports leading to massive queues and delays and the loss of small to medium business transactions with the EU. Implemented damaging and unnecessary additional british regulations which diverge from EU regulations and standards, necessitating extra cost to uk businesses which must support both standards. Screwed over the horizon science funding, screwed over studying abroad, and many other things too. There was a version of brexit that was minimally damaging, but on every case they pursued a maximally antagonistic solution in order to pander to the ERG and be seen to be tough to their senile voter base.

- Whatsapp (Meta) - Signal - Apple https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-ministers-lock-horns-with-whatsapp-over-threat-to-break-encryption/ https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-ministers-lock-horns-with...

sacnoradhq 3y ago
WhatsApp requires a phone number, implicitly deanonymizing you. It also lacked e2ee for a long time. Signal requires a phone number. Use the fork Session that generates anonymous identifiers. https://getsession.org https://getsession.org Apple participated in PRISM and also requires an identifier such as an email address or phone number.
- adhvaryu 3y ago
  E2E encryption means that the content of the messages you send are encrypted. Requiring a SIM card to sign-up doesn't kill that feature.
- felixg3 3y ago
  Anonymity is not equivalent to privacy, although lots of characteristics overlap.
- anothernewdude 3y ago
  phone numbers cost like $5. phone numbers don't deanonymize you.
  - sickill 3y ago
    In EU they do.
- Knee_Pain 3y ago
  ... and?
hardlianotion 3y ago
Would be amusing if British ministers could no longer use WhatsApp. They seem to be addicted to it.
pauby 3y ago
Meta and Apple will come to and arrangement. Signal will not. I'm not sure how I feel about any of that.
- zahllos 3y ago
  Agree entirely. Meta and Apple will make a lot of noise but ultimately neither will want to lose the UK market.
agilob 3y ago
Have they quit Australian market?

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

Do they even have to block UK users? Can't they just remove any business presence in the country to free themselves from any potential legal troubles?

deno 3y ago
Blocking UK users is removing business presence. How else would you go about it?
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  I mean having users in the country without having a business incorporated in the country, therefore there's no entity the Government has any jurisdiction over.
  - deno 3y ago
    If you accept business from UK customers and take their money or data you need to comply with UK law, as well as collect & pay VAT to the UK. This is more obvious in meatspace, for example it’s obvious that Chinese companies are not allowed to send children toys containing lead to EU markets. Your country of incorporation likely has an international free trade agreement with UK that you can read for details. Basically, you only need to incorporate in UK or establish a foreign branch if you need offices in UK or want to hire someone from UK (even remotely). The only way to opt-out is to block UK users.
    - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      > need to comply Define "need". If there's no legal jurisdiction, where is this "need"? If a company wants to follow the rules, sure, it will so the thing. But otherwise, is there international legal jurisdiction that covers, for example, a company in Seychelles offering e2e encrypted comms that has users in the UK? Isn't it up to the UK to put in place blocking technology or laws that prohibit specific app usage? I'm kinda thinking about the US TikTok situation. What if the service is free, like Signal and WhatsApp? (and TikTok)

jossclimb 3y ago

The whole thing will fail once they realise how impossible this is to implement.

djaychela 3y ago
I wish that were true, but I doubt it. They'll carry on, as they have in other self-immolating ways.
mdekkers 3y ago
> The whole thing will fail once they realise how impossible this is to implement. Uhhm…. Brexit? These clowns (and not just this specific bunch, the entire UK political class) did Brexit, do you really think a small thing like the feasibility of this law will stop them?
- radiator 3y ago
  What do you mean "these clowns did Brexit"? All they did was to organize a referendum. Why does this make them clowns in your eyes?
  - yungporko 3y ago
    yeah all they did is organise a referendum and then work tirelessly to ram lies and propaganda down the entire country's throat to make damn sure it passes.
  - adammarples 3y ago
    Just in case you're not british, no that's not what they did. They organised a referendum, voted in parliament to follow through on the vote, then spent 5 years negotiating pretty much the most damaging version of an exit that they could, burnt bridges with the EU, signed an agreement on the border with Ireland which they then decided to renege on, trashed our trade with the EU through failure to compromise on anything, failed to prepare our ports leading to massive queues and delays and the loss of small to medium business transactions with the EU. Implemented damaging and unnecessary additional british regulations which diverge from EU regulations and standards, necessitating extra cost to uk businesses which must support both standards. Screwed over the horizon science funding, screwed over studying abroad, and many other things too. There was a version of brexit that was minimally damaging, but on every case they pursued a maximally antagonistic solution in order to pander to the ERG and be seen to be tough to their senile voter base.