5 ms·

You cannot have both: privacy and safety, and lawful access for the government. Choose one. This has consequences: - pegasus was abused by governments to spy

You cannot have both: privacy and safety, and lawful access for the government. Choose one. This has consequences: - pegasus was abused by governments to spy and repress people. This is how it is going to be - there is no escape from banning encryption, as governments will do anything in their might to push that through - it introduces backdoors for hackers, and you will be an easy target, because the government want an easy access to your data - paedophiles and terrorist will use other means to communicate, or other protocols, solutions. Therefore lawful access is not to fight with terrorists, and not against paedophiles - what we are left is that it will be used to control population, and have easy access to data Everything in thread of banning encryption is straight propaganda and naivety of some folks that think banning encryption solves anything.

joenot443 3y ago
There was a case in the U.K. where a man was arrested and charged for misgendering a trans person on the street. The very obvious (to me) next step would be facilitating surveillance to track when people commit similar hate crimes (like using the wrong pronouns) online. We in North America forget that our friends across the pond have a very different relationship with speech than what we enjoy here. I find this bill pretty chilling.
- tekla 3y ago
  I don't want to believe you. Can you link the case?
  - johndunne 3y ago
    I think this is the case being referred to, and it was less misgender, more harassment and public humiliation. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216
    - averageRoyalty 3y ago
      The article you've linked doesn't support your interpretation: > Earlier, the court saw video footage from the preacher's body-worn camera which showed Ms Munir approaching Mr McConnell as he spoke to a small crowd. > She was seen to ask him: "Does God accept the LBGT community?" > The video then showed the 42-year-old as he responded to the crowd and referred to her as "this gentleman" and saying: "This is a man." It appears this trans woman approach a preacher and at best asked a question and got an answer. Without context, I wonder if it were intentionally inflamatory. Regardless, it hardly fits the bill of 'harassment'.
      - joenot443 3y ago
        This is exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you. I'm unsure why my comment's being received so poorly - for those downvoting - do you disagree with the court's decision? Do you think this does meet the definition for "harassment"?
        guitarbill 3y ago
        Nothing to do with disagreeing with the court. That case does not seem particularly relevant to the bill, but is excellent flame bait. And the smug North American comment does nothing to further the discussion either.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - johndunne 3y ago
        And that's my point. The court case was about harassment, and (rightfully) quashed on the basis of insufficient harassment. The case was referred to in terms of gender politics. Call me triggered, I came to see what HN'ers thought of the law in relation to these sham end-to-end encryption laws, not G politics.
        averageRoyalty 3y ago
- johndunne 3y ago
  I think you've misconstrued this case. The preacher was arrested for shouting and harassing a person in a public space. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216
  - fitchel 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - KronisLV 3y ago
      > Not everyone believes in this "gender identity" bullshit, and we shouldn't be forced by the law to accede to the demands of its acolytes. This feels like a very hateful take. For anyone who needs to hear this: not everyone is like this and a lot of people actually support you in finding your best selves and living happy lives. I'm sorry you have to deal with this. Debating the extent of the law and how it should be applied is okay, the tone doesn't seem that way to me.
      - fitchel 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - joenot443 3y ago
    Where is my misconstruction? > A Christian preacher who was found guilty of harassing a transgender woman by calling her a "man" and "gentleman" has had his conviction quashed. From what I understand, the 'harassment' claim was based on the misgendering, not the preaching. It sounds as if the court later overturned the claim, but the fact he was charged at all is a tad unsettling to me. In NYC I walk past preachers at Union Square all the time. I've been called a heretic and a sinner, you just gotta shrug it off. It sounds like in this case, the trans person who felt victimized actually _initiated_ the conversation. > Earlier, the court saw video footage from the preacher's body-worn camera which showed Ms Munir approaching Mr McConnell as he spoke to a small crowd. She was seen to ask him: "Does God accept the LBGT community?" So the complementary case here would be if I approached one of the Black Hebrew Israelites in Union Square and asked them how they felt about Catholics, and got the response you'd expect. Do you really think I'd have grounds for a 'harassment' claim? Like I said, I'm not English, this isn't my country. If the voters of the UK want this type of protection through power of the law, who am I to tell them otherwise. I'm just observing that I'm pleased to live in a country where disagreeing on gender politics isn't enough to land you a criminal record.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  People in the UK get arrested just for saying something online about transgender people even if it's not hateful, but 'wrong'. Look at how many people got arrested at the coronation. Yeah, they don't have free speech like the US, but most countries don't.
4death4 3y ago
Why can you not have both privacy and safety? The notion of privacy isn’t mutually exclusive with finding criminals. Generally, we accept that criminals don’t deserve privacy. Historically, that’s meant that investigators have needed to show someone is likely a criminal before invading their privacy. What’s wrong with that model? Why do we need to change it now?
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  > You cannot have both: privacy and safety, and lawful access for the government. Pretty sure GP was putting "privacy and safety" together on one side vs "lawful access for the government" on the other.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think that it is the best model, but it does require trading some safety for privacy. The argument goes that police and investigators could intervene faster and stop more criminals if they were not encumbered by probable cause. Hence, privacy and safety are a tradeoff.
lostlogin 3y ago
> You cannot have both: privacy and safety, and lawful access for the government. Choose one. My house seems to. Though I haven’t fallen out with my government so my view is likely naive.
Spivak 3y ago
Except of course the counterexample of all of human history. This is the first time ever there's been widely available services that completely commoditize "a lock that law enforcement can't break with effort." In the universe where a physical analog existed where I could have a safe in my house that was literally impossible for anyone but me to open and was a black-hole of information I can't imagine governments liking that very much. I'm not even some hardened criminal and it's for sure where I would stash my drugs and pirated movies. This is an identity crisis for law, widespread E2EE means that there are certain kinds of laws that become impossible to enforce. It's the kind of story with Bitcoin and finance. You have a shadow financial system that while you can try and compel the individual participating in it you have no power whatsoever to compel the system as a whole. If a court rules that I am owed money from Bob the best they can do is lock him up, they can't actually go in and transfer the money without the keys.
- maeil 3y ago
  This existed before, just only for the wealthy. If Bob had that money in a Swiss private bank or distributed over a sprawling network of shell companies in the Carribean, it would be just as tough to get to. Or for the less wealthy; Bob could have put it all in cash in some hole in the ground that he won't tell the location of. Realistically that's probably more stable of a value store than bitcoin; it's possible that it all gets stolen but given a good location and storage, much less likely than bitcoin dropping 70%. This has physical downsides the aforementioned options lack, hence the real options so far only having been for the wealthy.

joenot443 3y ago

There was a case in the U.K. where a man was arrested and charged for misgendering a trans person on the street. The very obvious (to me) next step would be facilitating surveillance to track when people commit similar hate crimes (like using the wrong pronouns) online. We in North America forget that our friends across the pond have a very different relationship with speech than what we enjoy here. I find this bill pretty chilling.

tekla 3y ago
I don't want to believe you. Can you link the case?
- johndunne 3y ago
  I think this is the case being referred to, and it was less misgender, more harassment and public humiliation. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216
  - averageRoyalty 3y ago
    The article you've linked doesn't support your interpretation: > Earlier, the court saw video footage from the preacher's body-worn camera which showed Ms Munir approaching Mr McConnell as he spoke to a small crowd. > She was seen to ask him: "Does God accept the LBGT community?" > The video then showed the 42-year-old as he responded to the crowd and referred to her as "this gentleman" and saying: "This is a man." It appears this trans woman approach a preacher and at best asked a question and got an answer. Without context, I wonder if it were intentionally inflamatory. Regardless, it hardly fits the bill of 'harassment'.
    - joenot443 3y ago
      This is exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you. I'm unsure why my comment's being received so poorly - for those downvoting - do you disagree with the court's decision? Do you think this does meet the definition for "harassment"?
      - guitarbill 3y ago
        Nothing to do with disagreeing with the court. That case does not seem particularly relevant to the bill, but is excellent flame bait. And the smug North American comment does nothing to further the discussion either.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - johndunne 3y ago
      And that's my point. The court case was about harassment, and (rightfully) quashed on the basis of insufficient harassment. The case was referred to in terms of gender politics. Call me triggered, I came to see what HN'ers thought of the law in relation to these sham end-to-end encryption laws, not G politics.
      - averageRoyalty 3y ago
johndunne 3y ago
I think you've misconstrued this case. The preacher was arrested for shouting and harassing a person in a public space. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-64905216
- fitchel 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - KronisLV 3y ago
    > Not everyone believes in this "gender identity" bullshit, and we shouldn't be forced by the law to accede to the demands of its acolytes. This feels like a very hateful take. For anyone who needs to hear this: not everyone is like this and a lot of people actually support you in finding your best selves and living happy lives. I'm sorry you have to deal with this. Debating the extent of the law and how it should be applied is okay, the tone doesn't seem that way to me.
    - fitchel 3y ago
      [flagged]
- joenot443 3y ago
  Where is my misconstruction? > A Christian preacher who was found guilty of harassing a transgender woman by calling her a "man" and "gentleman" has had his conviction quashed. From what I understand, the 'harassment' claim was based on the misgendering, not the preaching. It sounds as if the court later overturned the claim, but the fact he was charged at all is a tad unsettling to me. In NYC I walk past preachers at Union Square all the time. I've been called a heretic and a sinner, you just gotta shrug it off. It sounds like in this case, the trans person who felt victimized actually _initiated_ the conversation. > Earlier, the court saw video footage from the preacher's body-worn camera which showed Ms Munir approaching Mr McConnell as he spoke to a small crowd. She was seen to ask him: "Does God accept the LBGT community?" So the complementary case here would be if I approached one of the Black Hebrew Israelites in Union Square and asked them how they felt about Catholics, and got the response you'd expect. Do you really think I'd have grounds for a 'harassment' claim? Like I said, I'm not English, this isn't my country. If the voters of the UK want this type of protection through power of the law, who am I to tell them otherwise. I'm just observing that I'm pleased to live in a country where disagreeing on gender politics isn't enough to land you a criminal record.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
People in the UK get arrested just for saying something online about transgender people even if it's not hateful, but 'wrong'. Look at how many people got arrested at the coronation. Yeah, they don't have free speech like the US, but most countries don't.

4death4 3y ago

Why can you not have both privacy and safety? The notion of privacy isn’t mutually exclusive with finding criminals. Generally, we accept that criminals don’t deserve privacy. Historically, that’s meant that investigators have needed to show someone is likely a criminal before invading their privacy. What’s wrong with that model? Why do we need to change it now?

cassianoleal 3y ago
> You cannot have both: privacy and safety, and lawful access for the government. Pretty sure GP was putting "privacy and safety" together on one side vs "lawful access for the government" on the other.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think that it is the best model, but it does require trading some safety for privacy. The argument goes that police and investigators could intervene faster and stop more criminals if they were not encumbered by probable cause. Hence, privacy and safety are a tradeoff.

lostlogin 3y ago

> You cannot have both: privacy and safety, and lawful access for the government. Choose one. My house seems to. Though I haven’t fallen out with my government so my view is likely naive.

Spivak 3y ago

Except of course the counterexample of all of human history. This is the first time ever there's been widely available services that completely commoditize "a lock that law enforcement can't break with effort." In the universe where a physical analog existed where I could have a safe in my house that was literally impossible for anyone but me to open and was a black-hole of information I can't imagine governments liking that very much. I'm not even some hardened criminal and it's for sure where I would stash my drugs and pirated movies. This is an identity crisis for law, widespread E2EE means that there are certain kinds of laws that become impossible to enforce. It's the kind of story with Bitcoin and finance. You have a shadow financial system that while you can try and compel the individual participating in it you have no power whatsoever to compel the system as a whole. If a court rules that I am owed money from Bob the best they can do is lock him up, they can't actually go in and transfer the money without the keys.

maeil 3y ago
This existed before, just only for the wealthy. If Bob had that money in a Swiss private bank or distributed over a sprawling network of shell companies in the Carribean, it would be just as tough to get to. Or for the less wealthy; Bob could have put it all in cash in some hole in the ground that he won't tell the location of. Realistically that's probably more stable of a value store than bitcoin; it's possible that it all gets stolen but given a good location and storage, much less likely than bitcoin dropping 70%. This has physical downsides the aforementioned options lack, hence the real options so far only having been for the wealthy.