4 ms·
What the government actually wants is for service providers (as in, social media companies, not ISPs) to monitor everything happening on their service to make s
by cjs_ac 3y ago
What the government actually wants is for service providers (as in, social media companies, not ISPs) to monitor everything happening on their service to make sure that no one is coming to any serious harm. How providers do that is up to them.
The government doesn't care about the technology; it's all about corporate processes, and they're going to regulate it one corporation at a time. If you're not important to be asked to appear before a House of Commons Committee, you're not going to come to Ofcom's attention.
- janoc 3y ago> How providers do that is up to them. Sure. You are either demanding the impossible - or effectively banning encryption use because there is no other way how to comply with what the law demands, despite it ostensibly not banning anything. So that's rather disingenuous argument, IMO. The problem is that the governments not only don't care about technology, they don't understand it either. And tend to imagine and demand things that are about as realistic as a square circle - but it is a law, we don't care how you do it, it is your problem!
- cjs_ac 3y agoThere's a subtle but crucial difference. Service providers are free to offer end-to-end encrypted chat, but have to take responsibility for anything that's transmitted through that service. This means that services like Signal and WhatsApp will have to leave the UK, but I'm free to run my own service for just myself, my friends and my family. I would prefer the bill not to be enacted, but I can live with it.