4 ms·

It sounds like you're chiding others for complaining about the bill, and excusing this because the bill "only" enables mass surveillance and anti-privacy measur

It sounds like you're chiding others for complaining about the bill, and excusing this because the bill "only" enables mass surveillance and anti-privacy measures, rather than stipulating them. Might be I'm reading you wrong on this, but that's what I'm taking away. > What this all means is that the bill will only have the effects that the government has said it will in its press releases. I don't really believe that for a second. Whenever sweeping powers are introduced, there is scope creep. Just look at how anti-terrorism laws have been abused. And it seems Apple and others don't believe it either.

cjs_ac 3y ago
I am chiding people, not for complaining, but for misunderstanding the surrounding context. Legislation is only as powerful as those enforcing it. > And it seems Apple and others don't believe it either. Yes, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Signal, Meta, and all the other big players else who has turned up to the committee hearings will have their activities curtailed. Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for their friends needn't worry.
- generalizations 3y ago
  > Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for their friends needn't worry. Because they're too insignificant to matter, or because they won't be covered by the law? It sounds like the former, but you seem to imply the latter.
  - cjs_ac 3y ago
    It's a bit of both. The law states that Ofcom has to ask you for your risk assessments, and they can't ask you for those if they don't know you exist.
    - hanniabu 3y ago
      That's not a legitimate defense
    - monsieurbanana 3y ago
      I don't know if I'm missing some British humor here, that's absolutely not bit of both, that's squarely "because they're too insignificant to matter"
    - mrd3v0 3y ago
      I am amazed by how okay you seem with this. Wow. Maybe it is me, who has already lived under a very similar set of laws and know that corporations are always the least hit by such laws. These are instruments that infringe on basic individual rights such as right to privacy. These instruments create systemic significant incentives to corruption, totalitarianism, (corporate and international) espionage, and so on. Rights groups, activists, whistle-blowers, prosecuted or rather marginalised minorities, and other legitimate groups and individuals are going to be impacted by this. Underplaying this is incredibly naïve and downright dangerous.
    - b112 3y ago
      The law states that Ofcom has to ask you for your risk assessments, and they can't ask you for those if they don't know you exist. Good lord! That's the same logic one may employ as a criminal, say.. an inside trader! Well of course you won't get nabbed, if they don't know! So as soon as you do anything interesting, protest, stand up for a right, displease a cop, upset the wrong neighbour, you'll be noticed, eh? What a great law! Congrats, you made my neighbours wonder why I'm yelling at myself(seemingly) again. "Poor bbarnett, yelling in his empty house again, wonder when they'll take him away Marge?"
    - dharmab 3y ago
      This comment reads like a Yes, Minister scene.
    - janoc 3y ago
      You do realize that you "don't exist" only until one pissed off neighbor complains to OFCOM about you after your cat has pooped on their lawn one too many times? This is a rather incredible mindset to have, IMO. Even for me who doesn't quite subscribe to the constant Big Brother panic. This law gives the government a huge loaded gun that they can use to blast pretty much anyone they please with. But no worries, they aren't going to use it on you because you are too unimportant? And that still completely ignores the various collateral damages - such as if encryption is effectively outlawed because the regulatory hurdles associated with it are simply too high to bother with (just look at how many US websites rather block access from the EU instead of having to deal with GDPR compliance), then even if you aren't a target for the enforcement of this law your life could be very badly affected when your service provider gets hacked or your data get intercepted and some account of yours gets hijacked.
    - mdekkers 3y ago
      Ah, so “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, essentially. When they suddenly do know you exist, for example because you started protesting about human rights, or climate change, or excessive governmental investigatory powers, or whatever, suddenly someone can show on your doorstep saying “Well well well, what have we got here then” and sucking their teeth. Your argument isn’t only ill informed, it’s actively dangerous. Shame.
    - kozzz 3y ago
      I remember quite similar discussions throughout the 2010s in Russia and now half of the internet is blocked there and people are being jailed every day for “spreading misinformation online”.
- ac2u 3y ago
  IMO your analysis has a massive flaw. >Legislation is only as powerful as those enforcing it. While this is generally true, it doesn't necessarily stop the provisions within the bill being used as a political weapon to wield against someone. In other words, just because it's generally not used against small fry, doesn't mean it won't be used as a club against a particular small fry that's a thorn in the side of someone politically or judicially connected.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    You even forget the danger here. Like in France, where they voted in the right to let Macron and the police forces delete someone's French citizenship without judicial oversight. And that's ... kind of OK? I still don't agree with it, but yeah these people have shown that they're not going to abuse it on a large scale. But with 10% more votes, this power will go into the hands of Le Pen ... and everyone, including Macron, knows what will happen. (hell, I kind of suspect this is intentional on Macron's part. He wants to get re-elected by making the alternative to electing him catastrophic. It worked last time, sure, but obviously it needs to become more catastrophic if he's to be reelected)
    - mijamo 3y ago
      I don't even know what you are referring to. There has been no change in the possibility to remove the French citizenship under Macron, and the last time a change was attended it was supposed to be by a court together with a sentence for terrorism, not by the police, and it was proposed by the left under Hollande, and Macron opposed it. Also Macron cannot be re-elected in the next elections as there is a term limit.

cjs_ac 3y ago

I am chiding people, not for complaining, but for misunderstanding the surrounding context. Legislation is only as powerful as those enforcing it. > And it seems Apple and others don't believe it either. Yes, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Signal, Meta, and all the other big players else who has turned up to the committee hearings will have their activities curtailed. Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for their friends needn't worry.

generalizations 3y ago
> Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for their friends needn't worry. Because they're too insignificant to matter, or because they won't be covered by the law? It sounds like the former, but you seem to imply the latter.
- cjs_ac 3y ago
  It's a bit of both. The law states that Ofcom has to ask you for your risk assessments, and they can't ask you for those if they don't know you exist.
  - hanniabu 3y ago
    That's not a legitimate defense
  - monsieurbanana 3y ago
    I don't know if I'm missing some British humor here, that's absolutely not bit of both, that's squarely "because they're too insignificant to matter"
  - mrd3v0 3y ago
    I am amazed by how okay you seem with this. Wow. Maybe it is me, who has already lived under a very similar set of laws and know that corporations are always the least hit by such laws. These are instruments that infringe on basic individual rights such as right to privacy. These instruments create systemic significant incentives to corruption, totalitarianism, (corporate and international) espionage, and so on. Rights groups, activists, whistle-blowers, prosecuted or rather marginalised minorities, and other legitimate groups and individuals are going to be impacted by this. Underplaying this is incredibly naïve and downright dangerous.
  - b112 3y ago
    The law states that Ofcom has to ask you for your risk assessments, and they can't ask you for those if they don't know you exist. Good lord! That's the same logic one may employ as a criminal, say.. an inside trader! Well of course you won't get nabbed, if they don't know! So as soon as you do anything interesting, protest, stand up for a right, displease a cop, upset the wrong neighbour, you'll be noticed, eh? What a great law! Congrats, you made my neighbours wonder why I'm yelling at myself(seemingly) again. "Poor bbarnett, yelling in his empty house again, wonder when they'll take him away Marge?"
  - dharmab 3y ago
    This comment reads like a Yes, Minister scene.
  - janoc 3y ago
    You do realize that you "don't exist" only until one pissed off neighbor complains to OFCOM about you after your cat has pooped on their lawn one too many times? This is a rather incredible mindset to have, IMO. Even for me who doesn't quite subscribe to the constant Big Brother panic. This law gives the government a huge loaded gun that they can use to blast pretty much anyone they please with. But no worries, they aren't going to use it on you because you are too unimportant? And that still completely ignores the various collateral damages - such as if encryption is effectively outlawed because the regulatory hurdles associated with it are simply too high to bother with (just look at how many US websites rather block access from the EU instead of having to deal with GDPR compliance), then even if you aren't a target for the enforcement of this law your life could be very badly affected when your service provider gets hacked or your data get intercepted and some account of yours gets hijacked.
  - mdekkers 3y ago
    Ah, so “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, essentially. When they suddenly do know you exist, for example because you started protesting about human rights, or climate change, or excessive governmental investigatory powers, or whatever, suddenly someone can show on your doorstep saying “Well well well, what have we got here then” and sucking their teeth. Your argument isn’t only ill informed, it’s actively dangerous. Shame.
  - kozzz 3y ago
    I remember quite similar discussions throughout the 2010s in Russia and now half of the internet is blocked there and people are being jailed every day for “spreading misinformation online”.
ac2u 3y ago
IMO your analysis has a massive flaw. >Legislation is only as powerful as those enforcing it. While this is generally true, it doesn't necessarily stop the provisions within the bill being used as a political weapon to wield against someone. In other words, just because it's generally not used against small fry, doesn't mean it won't be used as a club against a particular small fry that's a thorn in the side of someone politically or judicially connected.
- candiodari 3y ago
  You even forget the danger here. Like in France, where they voted in the right to let Macron and the police forces delete someone's French citizenship without judicial oversight. And that's ... kind of OK? I still don't agree with it, but yeah these people have shown that they're not going to abuse it on a large scale. But with 10% more votes, this power will go into the hands of Le Pen ... and everyone, including Macron, knows what will happen. (hell, I kind of suspect this is intentional on Macron's part. He wants to get re-elected by making the alternative to electing him catastrophic. It worked last time, sure, but obviously it needs to become more catastrophic if he's to be reelected)
  - mijamo 3y ago
    I don't even know what you are referring to. There has been no change in the possibility to remove the French citizenship under Macron, and the last time a change was attended it was supposed to be by a court together with a sentence for terrorism, not by the police, and it was proposed by the left under Hollande, and Macron opposed it. Also Macron cannot be re-elected in the next elections as there is a term limit.