8 ms·
> The U.K. Parliament has passed the Online Safety Bill (OSB), which says it will make the U.K. “the safest place” in the world to be online. You think the UK
by bArray 3y ago
> The U.K. Parliament has passed the Online Safety Bill (OSB), which says it will make the U.K. “the safest place” in the world to be online.
You think the UK is safe, go to China or Russia! They have _really_ 'safe' internet. Even better, just cut the internet off, it couldn't be any safer!
The politicians passing this stuff are literally the least qualified people to discuss anything tech related. They literally do not understand (or possibly don't care) that a backdoor for them is a backdoor for any motivated attacker.
> A clause of the bill allows Ofcom, the British telecom regulator, to serve a notice requiring tech companies to scan their users–all of them–for child abuse content.
This is Apple's CSAM [1] all over again. I'm sure it won't be used at all for out-of-scope reasons... Firstly expanded to terrorism, and then generic crime, then extreme political views, then hate speech, etc.
Can somebody in 'Big Tech' please remind them that this includes _their_ messages too? I want you to email them on a regular basis something like: "We have scanned all of your files and private communications as per the requirement of the OSB, and found nothing currently deemed unacceptable by the current government. This is a reminder that any content sent now or any time in the past will be retroactively scanned and reported based on continuously evolving guidelines."
> This would affect even messages and files that are end-to-end encrypted to protect user privacy. As enacted, the OSB allows the government to force companies to build technology that can scan regardless of encryption–in other words, build a backdoor.
It looks like I will be moving to E2E via private servers.
[1] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_for_Children_Frequently_Asked_Questions.pdf https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_...
- firecall 3y agoIt doesn’t always include _their_ messages too. Forms of this legislation mandate exclusions for politicians and public figures. Apologies for the vague statement - on my phone, short of time.
- rakkhi 3y agoYes the only chance we have is big tech to massively boycott the UK https://open.substack.com/pub/rakkhi/p/big-tech-vs-governments?r=1afqp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://open.substack.com/pub/rakkhi/p/big-tech-vs-governmen...
- ColinHayhurst 3y agoHaving been involved in this directly for 3 years, as a search company CEO and based in the UK, I would say some (if not all) big tech companies were broadly supportive of this bill. It is almost certain that regulatory compliance will fall disproportionately on challengers. With one exception major exception, there is no indication whatsoever that they will boycott the UK because if it, nor has there been much resistance to it in public at least from big tech. The exception is about the potential threat to E2EE services.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kridsdale3 3y agoFascinating. That reminds me that Sheryl Sandberg was one of the strongest proponents of FOSTA/SESTA in the US. Awful setback for safety and rights of actual sex-worker as well as trafficking victims, but excellent for creating a compliance-moat that would protect Facebook/Instagram against challenger apps.
- andersrs 3y agoHate speech is just whatever they don't like such as opinions outside the Overton window. Even the law enforcement people are scared of being labeled hateful. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... The UK's BBC also knew about kiddy fiddler Jimmy Saville but they kept calm and carried on letting him fiddle. Given that the terminology comes straight of Orwell's 1984 they're barely even trying to hide the blatant power grab with a few cliche excuses (children, terrorism).
- kawhah 3y agoI don't really understand the relevance of Jimmy Savile here.
- trackflak 3y agoI think the point was - if the BBC (closely tied with the political establishment) cared so much about children's safety they would have acted against Saville before they were compelled.
- r_c_a_d 3y agoThe establishment never acted against Saville in his lifetime. All the public allegations and investigations happened almost a year after his death.
- kridsdale3 3y agoRight. So the UK elite are not to be trusted.
- PhasmaFelis 3y agoWhat exactly were we talking about again? OP seemed to be saying "cops and the BBC don't care about child abusers, therefore hate speech isn't a real problem," which...seems to be missing several critical links. I think they're trying to say that "hate speech" was invented by a hypocritical government to control people and it's not a real concern for regular folks, but that's obviously not true; it was born out of civil rights campaigns in the '50s and (eventually) adopted by governments due to popular demand.
- xeonmc 3y agoThose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Frank may or may not be talking about Rust with this quote.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoMaybe he will be correct here too. I think that isn't even too unlikely in the long run.
- tgv 3y ago> The politicians passing this stuff are literally the least qualified people to discuss anything tech related. That kind of ranting goes too far. Why the exaggerations? I count three. It only serves to drive the dislike against politics, and thus anti-democratic tendencies.
- ekianjo 3y agoPolitics are driven by dishonest narcissist liars so the default correct stance is no trust.
- jiofj 3y agoThis is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
- happytiger 3y agoI see what you did there. For the uninitiated: https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE?si=xPe3SQI_lI309h6j https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE?si=xPe3SQI_lI309h6j
- seanw444 3y agoYeah holy cow. I couldn't tell if parent was being sarcastic or not.
- bArray 3y agoI could literally explain to any old person, common man or child why this is bad quite quickly. I maintain this stance. > It only serves to drive the dislike against politics, and thus anti-democratic tendencies. I'm pro-democracy (in the sense that I don't have a better alternative). You can still disagree with the actions of politicians without being anti-democratic - in fact open disagreement is absolutely fundamental to democracy.
- simmerup 3y agoIf you think you can explain to anyone and convince them easily, you’re likely wrong. Unless you’re some god of charisma. Try and make someone have your opinion, it’s incredibly hard. If they disagree they won’t say so openly but they will vote for politicians trying to make the internet safer
- bondarchuk 3y agoI don't like the argument that backdoors are bad because they could fall in the wrong hands. It implies that one would be fine with backdoors if they could be made perfectly secure. Backdoors are bad simply because the government should not spy on their own citizens en masse, and it will still be bad when hypothetically perfect surveillance tech is invented.
- bArray 3y agoIt's the same argument if you consider the government also to be bad hands - but point taken.
- verisimi 3y agoGovernment are the wrong hands.
- mavhc 3y agoI blame the populace
- boffinAudio 3y agoThe people always get the government they deserve.
- WediBlino 3y agoThe CSAM scan has been going on for years, at the server. The Apple issue was Apple doing it on the handset.
- bArray 3y agoNot for E2E, this would mean data could also be decrypted in transit for inspection.
- scatters 3y agoThe politicians are aware their messages are being read already. This just opens up existing practice and levels the field.
- manonthewall 3y ago[dead]
- allarm 3y ago> China or Russia! They have _really_ 'safe' internet. Even better, just cut the internet off There's a huge difference between the cutoff and what happens in reality, in both of these countries.