5 ms·
Let's say this passes and the Signal Foundation and Matrix refuse to add surveillance features demanded by the UK. What effect would this have on technology as
by linuxandrew 3y ago
Let's say this passes and the Signal Foundation and Matrix refuse to add surveillance features demanded by the UK. What effect would this have on technology as a whole? Personally I can see it going two ways.
The Matrix.org Foundation operates in the UK would either be shut down, continue in another form elsewhere, or splintered with multiple custodians. I'm not entirely sure about the Signal Foundation, as, on one hand, they are an American org, but on the other hand the US is pushing comparable laws. Regardless I think that "techies" will continue to use and operate Matrix, XMPP, Mastodon, Secure Scuttlebutt and/or other decentralised (P2P/federated) infrastructure outside of the realm of regulation. The form which that takes really depends on whether further repression takes place. Techies are essentially banned from getting compensation or building a business out of providing such platforms and so it may steer towards true P2P and so-called darknets.
Mainstream platforms may find a way around this, like, say, secretly MITM'ing a security number of an encrypted chat. Most of the mainstream platforms are not open source which helps in this regard - the app could even lie about the security verification code to the user. Or perhaps they will be more transparent and simply have all conversations that involve someone that is likely in the UK encrypted for two recipients, one being UK intel. We can only speculate what this might look like, if we would ever even know.
I think this would be a sad outcome for the community and lead to more centralisation towards large, regulated platforms like Facebook, Apple, Google and Microsoft. It would also have a chilling and repressive effect on speech as if that wasn't an issue already. One can only dream of a P2P future but I have some doubts that this would take off without the resources that the big players have.
- freefaler 3y agoIf that solves the problem with 95% of the cases, the government would deem that good enough I suppose. It's a much better outcome for them than a good encryption by default. With the price of enforcement going down due to the digitalization of our lives and better LLMs we'll see a lot of "enforcement" in the future.
- averageRoyalty 3y ago> I think this would be a sad outcome for the community and lead to more centralisation towards large, regulated platforms like Facebook, Apple, Google and Microsoft. Your comment made me think... Perhaps it would actually lead to good. If tech people all knew to avoid the 'for-profits' who can be manipulated by a hostile government, we'd all move to something that isn't company run, and drag everyone who relies on us for support along kicking and screaming. Maybe this is just the kick we need?
- NoGravitas 3y ago> Or perhaps they will be more transparent and simply have all conversations that involve someone that is likely in the UK encrypted for two recipients, one being UK intel. That's certainly the way it would be implemented — an additional invisible member in every chat, which I've seen openly proposed. There's no way it would be transparent to the users, though. You'd simply have to be tech-savvy enough and well-informed enough to understand implicitly that this is the case.