3 ms·

I try to take a charitable, open-minded position in this. Two of us in the cybershow are parents. Taking on analysis of this bill was a tough decision, but som

I try to take a charitable, open-minded position in this. Two of us in the cybershow are parents. Taking on analysis of this bill was a tough decision, but something we felt obliged and qualified to do as parents and security experts. There are obviously grave harms around digital technology, plus its obvious myriad benefits. Covert communications enabling criminal and anti-social activity is just one small part. Our thought experiment is to assume good faith. To assume the government is sincerely invested in doing it's job of protecting citizens. Then to figure out how this has gone so wrong. Who are the marginal influencers? Why is the standard of technical expertise and computer science in our government so woefully inadequate. Why has saving face become more important than actually tackling difficult issues? I would characterise our UK government as confused and frustrated. Perhaps we should be pleased our government is tenacious in pursuing a bill whose aims we broadly support. But a mixture of prideful ego-politics, poor advice and technologically laughable solutionism has led us into a corner. That's not a good look for a country that started the industrial and digital revolutions.

jacquesm 3y ago
That's a very mature stance. Inside the government there are a ton of people doing really hard work who are frustrated by the rise of encryption, so they can no longer do the work that they were doing in the past effectively (some outside of government see this as a good thing). In those same governments there are those that dream of having access to all of this data with less honorable intentions. Because both are part of the same entity and once the capability is there it is pretty much a given that checks and balances will fail when you need them most I find myself both sympathetic to those that keep us safe and to those that object to this level of invasiveness, and I find myself opposed to those what effectively use terrorism and CP as a way to shepherd us into an authoritarian society. And then there are the consequences of finding yourself with a really bad instance of government at some point in the future, it could easily happen.
pjc50 3y ago
> Our thought experiment is to assume good faith. At this stage, and in the dying days of a flailing Tory government, that simply makes you a mug. Also from today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66720994 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66720994 ; this is specifically to protect murders carried out by and on behalf of the state in Northern Ireland. Along with historical matters such as the "spycops" scandal, and the abuses of PREVENT, there is a strong risk that mass surveillance will be used in political ways and in the service of misconduct. Accountability is poor and therefore trust is poor. > Who are the marginal influencers? The Daily Mail. Well, that and the security services who've clearly been pushing this.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > in the dying days of a flailing Tory government, that simply makes you a mug. TBF let's take longer view than the incumbent freak show of throwbacks and incompetents. > "spycops" scandal, and the abuses of PREVENT, Do please give the podcast episode I linked a listen. You'll appreciate that we took that precise case (the Bob Lambert case) as an example for discussing mission-creep and the impossibility of containment of digital privilege or other special powers.
gottorf 3y ago
> to assume good faith. To assume the government is sincerely invested in doing it's job of protecting citizens. Five thousand years of recorded human history should serve as adequate evidence against making this assumption. And we all know that even if the current government is sincerely invested in doing its job in good faith, any powers that are given to the current government can and will be abused by a future government that may be invested in doing something else.
- skinkestek 3y ago
  > And we all know that even if the current government is sincerely invested in doing its job in good faith, any powers that are given to the current government can and will be abused by a future government that may be invested in doing something else. Exactly this. For starters, and using the U as an example: If you are a Democrat (or whatever), think if you want these powers to be available to the next Trump. And vice versa: if you are a republican (or whatever) think if you want these spying capabilities and what not to be available to the next Democrat president.

jacquesm 3y ago

That's a very mature stance. Inside the government there are a ton of people doing really hard work who are frustrated by the rise of encryption, so they can no longer do the work that they were doing in the past effectively (some outside of government see this as a good thing). In those same governments there are those that dream of having access to all of this data with less honorable intentions. Because both are part of the same entity and once the capability is there it is pretty much a given that checks and balances will fail when you need them most I find myself both sympathetic to those that keep us safe and to those that object to this level of invasiveness, and I find myself opposed to those what effectively use terrorism and CP as a way to shepherd us into an authoritarian society. And then there are the consequences of finding yourself with a really bad instance of government at some point in the future, it could easily happen.

pjc50 3y ago

> Our thought experiment is to assume good faith. At this stage, and in the dying days of a flailing Tory government, that simply makes you a mug. Also from today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66720994 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66720994 ; this is specifically to protect murders carried out by and on behalf of the state in Northern Ireland. Along with historical matters such as the "spycops" scandal, and the abuses of PREVENT, there is a strong risk that mass surveillance will be used in political ways and in the service of misconduct. Accountability is poor and therefore trust is poor. > Who are the marginal influencers? The Daily Mail. Well, that and the security services who've clearly been pushing this.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> in the dying days of a flailing Tory government, that simply makes you a mug. TBF let's take longer view than the incumbent freak show of throwbacks and incompetents. > "spycops" scandal, and the abuses of PREVENT, Do please give the podcast episode I linked a listen. You'll appreciate that we took that precise case (the Bob Lambert case) as an example for discussing mission-creep and the impossibility of containment of digital privilege or other special powers.

gottorf 3y ago

> to assume good faith. To assume the government is sincerely invested in doing it's job of protecting citizens. Five thousand years of recorded human history should serve as adequate evidence against making this assumption. And we all know that even if the current government is sincerely invested in doing its job in good faith, any powers that are given to the current government can and will be abused by a future government that may be invested in doing something else.

skinkestek 3y ago
> And we all know that even if the current government is sincerely invested in doing its job in good faith, any powers that are given to the current government can and will be abused by a future government that may be invested in doing something else. Exactly this. For starters, and using the U as an example: If you are a Democrat (or whatever), think if you want these powers to be available to the next Trump. And vice versa: if you are a republican (or whatever) think if you want these spying capabilities and what not to be available to the next Democrat president.