14 ms·

The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet, and it'd be impossible to impose any without the kind of extreme re

The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet, and it'd be impossible to impose any without the kind of extreme restrictions of a totalitarian regime. Any measures without broad international cooperation will push vast number of people towards darker corners of the internet, which will not just end up completely undermining what they are trying to achieve, it will make the problems worse. Meta alone have the power to make this law a miserable failure. People will want to use WhatsApp, the government themselves use it extensively. If meta refuses there is very little they can do. Facebook can continue to operate without a single person on the ground in UK. It might harm their business in some ways but it's definitely doable. The government might be able to force/convince Apple and Google to take it out their app stores in the UK but such regional restrictions are easily bypassed and WhatsApp is popular enough to make people try it. So that would then normalise the practices such as side loading / jail breaking and avoiding regional restrictions. Cyber criminals would be rubbing their hands at the opportunities this creates and I am sure the peodos and terrorists this is meant to be stopping will jump at the chance to get in on the act.

dheera 3y ago
Even with a totalitarian regime, they cannot stop the rest of the world from using encryption. People can pull their business entities out of the UK and they have no jurisdiction outside their borders. If I create an E2E messaging app, I don't need to listen to the UK at all. The UK can't tell me what to do any more than China can. China can block my app if they want, but it's on them, not me, to block it. Same goes for the UK. They can set up a firewall too if they want. But I don't need to change my app if I don't set foot in the UK.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- account-5 3y ago
  Yeah the UK doesn't have the clout of the US that does go after app creators in other countries all the time extraditing them to the US etc, or attempting to anyway.
- jokethrowaway 3y ago
  They certainly can, if they wanted to - or they could block your app and exile you with minimum effort. Telegram is half banned in Russia. Of course this doesn't apply to the bad guys: they're already breaking the law, using E2E is a no-brainer for them. The UK government can't ban math out of existence (even if it looks like they're trying very hard, judging from the quality of their education system) so there will always be encryption. It's the same with guns: congratulations you've outlawed guns and now only criminals can use them.
  - ggm 3y ago
    Your last analogy is very poor because even against rising rates of criminal gun use, the UK and the ROTW apart from the USA continues to have substantially lower levels of gun related deaths and suicide by police, against the USA. So true: gun use and ownership in the UK rises and is mostly criminals. It's still less of a problem per capita than promiscuous gun ownership in the USA by all measures I understand. This has nothing to do with the "war on encryption by the state" topic
ajdude 3y ago
> The government might be able to force/convince Apple and Google to take it out their app stores in the UK Apple has even threatened to withdraw their own systems from the UK rather than comply with this. https://9to5mac.com/2023/07/20/apple-imessage-facetime-remove-security-law/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/07/20/apple-imessage-facetime-remov...
- sneak 3y ago
  Unlike in China, where they do presently escrow keys to the government for mass surveillance.
  - webinvest 3y ago
    That’s because Apple still makes their hardware in China & America. But not in the UK.
  - supernikio2 3y ago
    Yes, because China has double the population as the whole of Europe. Ceasing operations in the UK wouldn't hurt their revenue as much as doing so in China.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      So Apple's only principled if they'll make slightly less ludacris amounts of money? It's really hard to be a credible "privacy/security" choice when your morals are plainly for sale...
      - function_seven 3y ago
        Nobody is talking about morals here. Its bad for business for Apple to capitulate to the UK. It's bad for business for them to not capitulate to China. And iPhones ceasing to be sold in the UK would probably be all it takes for public backlash to neuter the law. I imagine that's not on the table in China.
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet Don't know what universe or timeline you're from, but on this earth today, the internet definitely has borders. That's why we have those EU cookie banners and GDPR consent forms, and why some of my favorite piracy websites are blocked by all ISPs in my country, or why I can't watch Top Gear on BBC's website because I'm not from the UK, or why Facebook had to remove some politically spicy content worldwide because the courts where I live forced them to, etc, etc. Mainstream web companies have to conform to local laws in each country or they'll get fined or blocked. Sure, there's VPNs to circumvent that, but the days of the lawless and borderless internet are a thing of the past.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  My choice of interpretation is that those aren't internet borders, they're copyright borders, commercial borders, layers on top of a borderless internet. This argument tends to break down at The Great Firewall of China, however, due to its thoroughness.
- splix 3y ago
  Unfortunately, we see those EU cookie banners and GDPR forms even if we live and visit a non-EU web site from outside. It doesn't target only the people inside the EU. So for this particular case is has no borders.
momonotoro 3y ago
Ever been to China? The internet certainly has borders and boundaries. Sometimes you can sneak across or get a visa, but individual nations make their own rules. Most people either follow them or remain unaware of them, and large multinational companies will typically follow local laws because they are juicy targets. In the UK, companies which protest this law are threatening to leave the market. That would mean blocking UK users on their properties, not helping them find ways to break the law. Or, when you say "no boarders," do you mean that the internet is not zoned for residential use? Sorry if I misunderstood.
- tjpnz 3y ago
  The internet most in China have access to is best viewed as a national intranet.
- throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
  "and it'd be impossible to impose any without the kind of extreme restrictions of a totalitarian regime." Surely china would fall under that statement from OP's perspective.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  If the UK implemented something like The Great Firewall of China, it would be a gigantic statement about the country's future ideological direction (arguably started and in line with Brexit), and may actually be enough to cause protests large enough to make a difference.
  - alexfoo 3y ago
    Don’t give our idiot Government any ideas.
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    >arguably started and in line with Brexit I disagree with this part. The EU is on that same path. The EU Great Firewall idea has been kicked around for years and it has even shown up in some policy suggestion documents.
coldtea 3y ago
>The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet, and it'd be impossible to impose any without the kind of extreme restrictions of a totalitarian regime. Why would the latter stop them? They have no problem with these. >Any measures without broad international cooperation Don't worry, other governments are just as shitty and want the same BS.
ccppurcell 3y ago
It's Charles II banning coffeehouses all over again.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  The central problem with the UK is that they've never fully embraced, or taken the time to understand, an inherent, universal, unconditional right to freedom of speech by all of their citizens. Kings respected it... when it was convenient. And so the democracy they begat also only respects it... when it is convenient. But freedom of speech when another permits it is no freedom at all, because the right's value increases precisely with its ability to stand up to other, more powerful interests' disagreement with speech.
wesapien 3y ago
It's not impossible. The pandemic showed that you don't need a Hitler or Stalin figure to be ruled with an iron fist. The oligarchy could just make the pro encryption people the new ivermectin.
- aaron_m04 3y ago
  > The oligarchy could just make the pro encryption people the new ivermectin. Can you elaborate?
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Encrypted files? You're obviously a money laundering, drug trafficking, child abusing terrorist. I pronounce you guilty and off to the waterboarding room with you.
  - wesapien 3y ago
    They can create a whole new narrative around anything and you reward people with some power that would subscribe to that new story.
    - aaron_m04 3y ago
      OK, but I was referring to the "ivermectin" part.
      - wesapien 3y ago
        Ivermectin had every institutional accolade that a drug could have but because authorities wanted to take power away from doctors (took away their agency) to offer off-label use they had to "nerf" it to the point of horse paste. Do a Google search for Ivermectin for before:2020 and after:2019 and you will see the narrative change.
        aaron_m04 3y ago
        Ivermectin has legitimate uses for humans and other animals for various invertebrate parasites (mites, lice, and worms); it is in fact prescribed to humans for those parasites. There is only in vitro evidence for it being effective against the virus causing COVID-19; if there is in vivo evidence for it being effective against that or any other viral invection, I'd love to see it.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
The international network we used to know has been destroyed. It is fracturing into smaller regional networks with heavy filtering at the borders as countries seek to impose their little laws on it. I'm glad I was able to experience the true internet while it lasted. Truly a wonder of this world.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  Encryption respects no authority... ... which is why they continue to come for encryption.
hkon 3y ago
I think it's dangerous to assume they fail to understand. These are smart people with good advisors. They just want to do it anyway. Which puts them in the category of evil. Who would you rather be in the public eye, evil or stupid?
- kmlx 3y ago
  > They just want to do it anyway. some background here. the opposition in the UK is accusing the government of dragging their feet over this law, and are pushing them to adopt it sooner. they are also criticising the government for watering it down. various NGOs are also attacking the government for watering it down and not moving as fast as possible. basically the whole political spectrum is not only for this law, but wants it strengthened even further. there are also calls from the public for the government to go even further. this is why there is no real backlash against this law. everyone no only wants it, but wants it to go a lot further than what the government has proposed.
- jen20 3y ago
  > These are smart people They really are not. The current crop of UK politicians of all stripes are thick as they come - intellectual lightweights who can bullshit their way through a media appearance thanks only to an abject lack of shame. No one can look at people like Mark François, Liz Truss or Dianne Abbott (just to take three) and think “ah, there’s someone playing dumb for the camera”! Unfortunately, the current crop of journalists are largely ineffective if not broadly enabling if this kind of behaviour, and politics is not a field anyone not already independently wealthy can afford to be in (a junior developer in the Bay Area can easily make more than the Prime Minister) so it does not seem likely to self-correct.
fit2rule 3y ago
[dead]
retube 3y ago
> If meta refuses there is very little they can do. Facebook can continue to operate without a single person on the ground in UK If it came to it, Whatsapp could be blocked at the network level. All the gov need to do is impose regulations that forbid ISPs and other infrastructure hosts to carry the traffic.
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  And then you present commercial VPNs to people who might have never heard of it. Now you need to block VPNs, and the cat-and-mouse game gets in full action! Also, at this point you've basically implemented the roots of a British version of The Great Firewall.
- McDyver 3y ago
  As GP pointed out: > such regional restrictions are easily bypassed and WhatsApp is popular enough to make people try it. So that would then normalise the practices such as side loading / jail breaking and avoiding regional restrictions. If people would be doing this (using a VPN, for instance), they would know how to bypass those restrictions. Breaking encryption is not good for anyone and won't solve absolutely any problems, except the "problem" of right to privacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
  - retube 3y ago
    Sure, it can be circumvented. But 95% of people won't be bothered / wont know how / wont want the hassle.
tim333 3y ago
>The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand ... impossible to impose Yeah but it's never worried them much in the past. As a Brit I occasionally come across the effects of them requiring ISPs to block piracy sites. Something comes up saying "this site is blocked" so you click like one or two buttons to switch to a different connection or turn a VPN on (VeePN is good and free). I imagine their encryption ban will be similarly tricky to avoid. I think it's more about looking noble to the electors than actually achieving anything.
Digit-Al 3y ago
I think a large majority of the "non technical" population would have no clue how to sideload apps, or even that it was possible, and that the more likely result of WhatsApp being withdrawn from the UK would be massive screaming from the public of such intensity and wrath that the government would be forced to backtrack.
dalbasal 3y ago
Legislators, courts and bureaucrats (in this order) always fail to grasp such things. That's an idea erodes their jurisdiction and authority, and abhorrent to thee ethos. No borders (from their POV), puts internet businesses above the law... which it sort of does. The global village happened, but global authority did not. There are no clean resolutions to some of these tensions.
- pmontra 3y ago
  They might even understand that but if they think that they'll get more votes by banning e2e encryption, they'll ban it. If people will sideload WhatsApp, they might not go after them. They'll keep the extra votes coming from "we care about the children" and lose very little votes for the small inconvenience of sideloading once. By the way, does a sideloaded WhatsApp on Android still update from the Play store? And what will iPhone owners do?
  - dalbasal 3y ago
    I don't think the thing driving this initiative is public sentiment. The public, obviously hates child abuse and that's a convincing argument. Child protection organisations might be vocal proponents... but law enforcement, mi5 and whatnot are also probably strong advocates and tend to have the ear of governments. This is a security/law enforcement issue.
keepamovin 3y ago
I see no failure to understand. The UK is a pragmatic imperial power, not a collaborative cooperative peer. They built Empire upon the asymmetric application of technology. When time to surrender Empire, they did so. When time to build a Financial Empire, they did so. When the time comes to build an Internet Empire, I'm sure they will do that too, by applying whatever technology they have at hand.
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  When is the time to build an internet empire if not 20 years ago?
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Good point. I'm not right now privy to their rarefied machinations, but I'm sure they have some aces in the hole.

dheera 3y ago

Even with a totalitarian regime, they cannot stop the rest of the world from using encryption. People can pull their business entities out of the UK and they have no jurisdiction outside their borders. If I create an E2E messaging app, I don't need to listen to the UK at all. The UK can't tell me what to do any more than China can. China can block my app if they want, but it's on them, not me, to block it. Same goes for the UK. They can set up a firewall too if they want. But I don't need to change my app if I don't set foot in the UK.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
account-5 3y ago
Yeah the UK doesn't have the clout of the US that does go after app creators in other countries all the time extraditing them to the US etc, or attempting to anyway.
jokethrowaway 3y ago
They certainly can, if they wanted to - or they could block your app and exile you with minimum effort. Telegram is half banned in Russia. Of course this doesn't apply to the bad guys: they're already breaking the law, using E2E is a no-brainer for them. The UK government can't ban math out of existence (even if it looks like they're trying very hard, judging from the quality of their education system) so there will always be encryption. It's the same with guns: congratulations you've outlawed guns and now only criminals can use them.
- ggm 3y ago
  Your last analogy is very poor because even against rising rates of criminal gun use, the UK and the ROTW apart from the USA continues to have substantially lower levels of gun related deaths and suicide by police, against the USA. So true: gun use and ownership in the UK rises and is mostly criminals. It's still less of a problem per capita than promiscuous gun ownership in the USA by all measures I understand. This has nothing to do with the "war on encryption by the state" topic

ajdude 3y ago

> The government might be able to force/convince Apple and Google to take it out their app stores in the UK Apple has even threatened to withdraw their own systems from the UK rather than comply with this. https://9to5mac.com/2023/07/20/apple-imessage-facetime-remove-security-law/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/07/20/apple-imessage-facetime-remov...

sneak 3y ago
Unlike in China, where they do presently escrow keys to the government for mass surveillance.
- webinvest 3y ago
  That’s because Apple still makes their hardware in China & America. But not in the UK.
- supernikio2 3y ago
  Yes, because China has double the population as the whole of Europe. Ceasing operations in the UK wouldn't hurt their revenue as much as doing so in China.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    So Apple's only principled if they'll make slightly less ludacris amounts of money? It's really hard to be a credible "privacy/security" choice when your morals are plainly for sale...
    - function_seven 3y ago
      Nobody is talking about morals here. Its bad for business for Apple to capitulate to the UK. It's bad for business for them to not capitulate to China. And iPhones ceasing to be sold in the UK would probably be all it takes for public backlash to neuter the law. I imagine that's not on the table in China.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet Don't know what universe or timeline you're from, but on this earth today, the internet definitely has borders. That's why we have those EU cookie banners and GDPR consent forms, and why some of my favorite piracy websites are blocked by all ISPs in my country, or why I can't watch Top Gear on BBC's website because I'm not from the UK, or why Facebook had to remove some politically spicy content worldwide because the courts where I live forced them to, etc, etc. Mainstream web companies have to conform to local laws in each country or they'll get fined or blocked. Sure, there's VPNs to circumvent that, but the days of the lawless and borderless internet are a thing of the past.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
My choice of interpretation is that those aren't internet borders, they're copyright borders, commercial borders, layers on top of a borderless internet. This argument tends to break down at The Great Firewall of China, however, due to its thoroughness.
splix 3y ago
Unfortunately, we see those EU cookie banners and GDPR forms even if we live and visit a non-EU web site from outside. It doesn't target only the people inside the EU. So for this particular case is has no borders.

momonotoro 3y ago

Ever been to China? The internet certainly has borders and boundaries. Sometimes you can sneak across or get a visa, but individual nations make their own rules. Most people either follow them or remain unaware of them, and large multinational companies will typically follow local laws because they are juicy targets. In the UK, companies which protest this law are threatening to leave the market. That would mean blocking UK users on their properties, not helping them find ways to break the law. Or, when you say "no boarders," do you mean that the internet is not zoned for residential use? Sorry if I misunderstood.

tjpnz 3y ago
The internet most in China have access to is best viewed as a national intranet.
throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
"and it'd be impossible to impose any without the kind of extreme restrictions of a totalitarian regime." Surely china would fall under that statement from OP's perspective.
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
If the UK implemented something like The Great Firewall of China, it would be a gigantic statement about the country's future ideological direction (arguably started and in line with Brexit), and may actually be enough to cause protests large enough to make a difference.
- alexfoo 3y ago
  Don’t give our idiot Government any ideas.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  >arguably started and in line with Brexit I disagree with this part. The EU is on that same path. The EU Great Firewall idea has been kicked around for years and it has even shown up in some policy suggestion documents.

coldtea 3y ago

>The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet, and it'd be impossible to impose any without the kind of extreme restrictions of a totalitarian regime. Why would the latter stop them? They have no problem with these. >Any measures without broad international cooperation Don't worry, other governments are just as shitty and want the same BS.

ccppurcell 3y ago

It's Charles II banning coffeehouses all over again.

ethbr0 3y ago
The central problem with the UK is that they've never fully embraced, or taken the time to understand, an inherent, universal, unconditional right to freedom of speech by all of their citizens. Kings respected it... when it was convenient. And so the democracy they begat also only respects it... when it is convenient. But freedom of speech when another permits it is no freedom at all, because the right's value increases precisely with its ability to stand up to other, more powerful interests' disagreement with speech.

wesapien 3y ago

It's not impossible. The pandemic showed that you don't need a Hitler or Stalin figure to be ruled with an iron fist. The oligarchy could just make the pro encryption people the new ivermectin.

aaron_m04 3y ago
> The oligarchy could just make the pro encryption people the new ivermectin. Can you elaborate?
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Encrypted files? You're obviously a money laundering, drug trafficking, child abusing terrorist. I pronounce you guilty and off to the waterboarding room with you.
- wesapien 3y ago
  They can create a whole new narrative around anything and you reward people with some power that would subscribe to that new story.
  - aaron_m04 3y ago
    OK, but I was referring to the "ivermectin" part.
    - wesapien 3y ago
      Ivermectin had every institutional accolade that a drug could have but because authorities wanted to take power away from doctors (took away their agency) to offer off-label use they had to "nerf" it to the point of horse paste. Do a Google search for Ivermectin for before:2020 and after:2019 and you will see the narrative change.
      - aaron_m04 3y ago
        Ivermectin has legitimate uses for humans and other animals for various invertebrate parasites (mites, lice, and worms); it is in fact prescribed to humans for those parasites. There is only in vitro evidence for it being effective against the virus causing COVID-19; if there is in vivo evidence for it being effective against that or any other viral invection, I'd love to see it.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

The international network we used to know has been destroyed. It is fracturing into smaller regional networks with heavy filtering at the borders as countries seek to impose their little laws on it. I'm glad I was able to experience the true internet while it lasted. Truly a wonder of this world.

ethbr0 3y ago
Encryption respects no authority... ... which is why they continue to come for encryption.

hkon 3y ago

I think it's dangerous to assume they fail to understand. These are smart people with good advisors. They just want to do it anyway. Which puts them in the category of evil. Who would you rather be in the public eye, evil or stupid?

kmlx 3y ago
> They just want to do it anyway. some background here. the opposition in the UK is accusing the government of dragging their feet over this law, and are pushing them to adopt it sooner. they are also criticising the government for watering it down. various NGOs are also attacking the government for watering it down and not moving as fast as possible. basically the whole political spectrum is not only for this law, but wants it strengthened even further. there are also calls from the public for the government to go even further. this is why there is no real backlash against this law. everyone no only wants it, but wants it to go a lot further than what the government has proposed.
jen20 3y ago
> These are smart people They really are not. The current crop of UK politicians of all stripes are thick as they come - intellectual lightweights who can bullshit their way through a media appearance thanks only to an abject lack of shame. No one can look at people like Mark François, Liz Truss or Dianne Abbott (just to take three) and think “ah, there’s someone playing dumb for the camera”! Unfortunately, the current crop of journalists are largely ineffective if not broadly enabling if this kind of behaviour, and politics is not a field anyone not already independently wealthy can afford to be in (a junior developer in the Bay Area can easily make more than the Prime Minister) so it does not seem likely to self-correct.

fit2rule 3y ago

[dead]

retube 3y ago

> If meta refuses there is very little they can do. Facebook can continue to operate without a single person on the ground in UK If it came to it, Whatsapp could be blocked at the network level. All the gov need to do is impose regulations that forbid ISPs and other infrastructure hosts to carry the traffic.

cassianoleal 3y ago
And then you present commercial VPNs to people who might have never heard of it. Now you need to block VPNs, and the cat-and-mouse game gets in full action! Also, at this point you've basically implemented the roots of a British version of The Great Firewall.
McDyver 3y ago
As GP pointed out: > such regional restrictions are easily bypassed and WhatsApp is popular enough to make people try it. So that would then normalise the practices such as side loading / jail breaking and avoiding regional restrictions. If people would be doing this (using a VPN, for instance), they would know how to bypass those restrictions. Breaking encryption is not good for anyone and won't solve absolutely any problems, except the "problem" of right to privacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
- retube 3y ago
  Sure, it can be circumvented. But 95% of people won't be bothered / wont know how / wont want the hassle.

tim333 3y ago

>The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand ... impossible to impose Yeah but it's never worried them much in the past. As a Brit I occasionally come across the effects of them requiring ISPs to block piracy sites. Something comes up saying "this site is blocked" so you click like one or two buttons to switch to a different connection or turn a VPN on (VeePN is good and free). I imagine their encryption ban will be similarly tricky to avoid. I think it's more about looking noble to the electors than actually achieving anything.

Digit-Al 3y ago

I think a large majority of the "non technical" population would have no clue how to sideload apps, or even that it was possible, and that the more likely result of WhatsApp being withdrawn from the UK would be massive screaming from the public of such intensity and wrath that the government would be forced to backtrack.

dalbasal 3y ago

Legislators, courts and bureaucrats (in this order) always fail to grasp such things. That's an idea erodes their jurisdiction and authority, and abhorrent to thee ethos. No borders (from their POV), puts internet businesses above the law... which it sort of does. The global village happened, but global authority did not. There are no clean resolutions to some of these tensions.

pmontra 3y ago
They might even understand that but if they think that they'll get more votes by banning e2e encryption, they'll ban it. If people will sideload WhatsApp, they might not go after them. They'll keep the extra votes coming from "we care about the children" and lose very little votes for the small inconvenience of sideloading once. By the way, does a sideloaded WhatsApp on Android still update from the Play store? And what will iPhone owners do?
- dalbasal 3y ago
  I don't think the thing driving this initiative is public sentiment. The public, obviously hates child abuse and that's a convincing argument. Child protection organisations might be vocal proponents... but law enforcement, mi5 and whatnot are also probably strong advocates and tend to have the ear of governments. This is a security/law enforcement issue.

keepamovin 3y ago

I see no failure to understand. The UK is a pragmatic imperial power, not a collaborative cooperative peer. They built Empire upon the asymmetric application of technology. When time to surrender Empire, they did so. When time to build a Financial Empire, they did so. When the time comes to build an Internet Empire, I'm sure they will do that too, by applying whatever technology they have at hand.

jabradoodle 3y ago
When is the time to build an internet empire if not 20 years ago?
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Good point. I'm not right now privy to their rarefied machinations, but I'm sure they have some aces in the hole.