7 ms·
Surveillance-by-Design in Proposed Amendments to the UK Investigatory Powers Act
- gumballindie 3y agoOther than ai companies and ai workers no decent engineer or company would agree to these changes. The UK government seems desperate to alienate everyone.
- calvinmorrison 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> Domestic Firearms You joking? We go to prison for possession of Pepper Spray! Almost make Russia look like a free country! https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/577568 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/577568
- ben_w 3y ago> Domestic Firearms This has such extremely widespread support in the UK that Americans may find it nonsensical: the actual literal police in the UK don't have firearms as standard, and most of the police don't want them to become standard issue for the police. The actual literal police.
- FerretFred 3y ago> There is a bill moving rapidly through the U.K. Parliament that poses a significant threat to data security and privacy in the U.K. and beyond. It is ill considered and should be amended substantially before it moves forward. The bill is flawed in several respects UK citizen (person of interest?) here.. sadly, this summarises what passes for the New Normal here in Britain. Contentious bills are always "rushed", and will only be considered by the people it will ultimately affect. These bills are always flawed in some way, but somehow, the Oppositin never seems to oppose. I'm not surprised.
- hkt 3y agoUnfortunately Labour (with the exception of when they had Corbyn in charge) are habitually authoritarian. The mark of a party of lawyers, perhaps. So, no real opposition.
- shapefrog 3y agoThe conservative party bears the mark of a party of the uneducated and unemployed. As little as laywers bring to the table, its at least something.
- graemep 3y agoEven if that were true (its not IMO), its not the educated and unemployed who like this sort of legislation. It is the security services, police, and civil service. At the moment the weak leadership (useless PM) is giving them an opportunity to rush the politicians into stiff like this.
- FpUser 3y ago[flagged]
- worik 3y agoEngland has always been dictatorial The English have never been free
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dewclin 3y ago> the U.K. government could use existing powers to require that the company meet surveillance capability demands as a condition of making a product or feature available. > If the government’s demands are not met, the company may have no choice but to abandon the product or feature launch, giving the government essentially a veto power on how companies innovate and improve their products Well, that's going to attract tech companies to the UK /s
- hammyhavoc 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- user764743 3y ago>There’s no reason to think that the intentions behind the bill are anything but noble. Who are these ex-cops kidding?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- LispSporks22 3y agoI think the UK kinda just needs to build its own “internet” like China does. Apps for UK people to get spied and surveilled upon and generally “kept in line”. Also maybe a courtesy firewall so they don’t feel completely left out.
- WhackyIdeas 3y agoI live in the UK. And I agree. May as well. You can put lipstick on pig. But it’s still a pig. Not sure if Cameron got that memo, mind you.
- 9dev 3y agoI’m sure the lipstick will suit him just fine!
- AA-BA-94-2A-56 3y agoLoved that episode of Black Mirror
- OliveMate 3y agoThe sad thing is that our political class and media used to actively ridicule China's Great Firewall, but now when the internet nasty of the month pops up they all froth at the mouth over controlling what people can see.
- shapefrog 3y agoThe political class and media STILL to actively ridicule China's Great Firewall while proposing the same thing while claiming that it is "completely different". Wait till you hear their thoughts on the disgusting social credit system ...
- simmerup 3y agoI think there are those of us in the UK that would welcome a home grown alternative to Silicon Valley surveillance capitalism
- LispSporks22 3y agoIs there a name for efforts that are terrible and often defeated, but are basically inevitable due to just wearing down its opponents over time?
- rad_gruchalski 3y agoDemocracy.
- wolverine876 3y agoYou can use the same tactics.
- rad_gruchalski 3y agoYes.
- elmomle 3y ago"War of attrition" is the phrase I hear used most frequently in such contexts.
- ben_w 3y ago> Paired with the gag order that comes with each, this has several effects, including that the non-U.K. company can’t notify its home government of the demand, even one that violates the law of the home government, preventing any sort of diplomatic assistance. What is wrong with the British government, that they even think they get to order foreign companies to break the laws of their home countries?
- simmerup 3y agoWell they can always just not sell to the UK if it’s such a problem.
- ben_w 3y agoThey may well just not operate in the UK, but it remains to be seen if anyone will speak openly about being given an order they're not supposed to reveal the existence of, even in cases where that order is to break a law passed by their own government without telling their own government.
- pc86 3y agoWhether or not that is a reasonable response is irrelevant to the fact that the law is, on its face, idiotic. How else would you frame requiring someone not bound by your laws to break the laws of their own country?
- bemusedthrow75 3y agoTrade in the UK and you are, in fact, bound by UK laws. That this regularly comes as a surprise to Americans is perhaps why the UK is so suspicious of US Big Tech firms.
- ben_w 3y agoI agree with what you're saying; the problem is that it looks like the UK is trying to give itself the power to force companies to secretly break the laws of the nation the company is based in. Companies can make themselves the servants of two masters by operating in two jurisdictions with mutually incompatible laws, but they do so at their own peril. Similar discussion with different details comes up sometimes with e.g. "should Apple do business in China?", but (IMO) the UK isn't as important as China and (IMO) has less leverage to encourage companies to take that risk.
- account-5 3y ago[flagged]
- ben_w 3y agoRepublic? That's dangerously modern thinking you have there. :P I visited for Christmas, saw yet another magazine with Princess Diana on the covers even though she died in '97.
- account-5 3y agoI would imagine that had more to The Crown's current series covering that period, more than regurgitation or old news.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hcrean 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- WhackyIdeas 3y agoThis essentially means that companies will be able to lie about certain features they are giving users, such as being able to delete data or data being encrypted and because of the gag order they will know that they wouldn’t be allowed to tell users anyway. So it cleverly allows companies to be able to advertise security features whilst protecting them from the law when they don’t give those features… Clever. And very sneaky.
- bitcharmer 3y agoI moved here 10 years ago and this country has been in constant downward spiral since then. I'm pretty sure I won't be here in the next 10 year. It's insane.
- trinsic2 3y agoWhy is this so suddenly being pushed so strongly by governments. Is seems like something kicked at a hornets nest.
- bemusedthrow75 3y agoAhh, classic HN. You have to love how it never approaches “no politics” to discuss the EU or the UK, when any discussion that the US —- itself quietly pretending the NSA is not essentially unchained —- is at considerable risk of ending the whole “great experiment in self-rule”, the superiority of which it lords over the rest of us, is essentially verboten. We get it: HN hates the Brits and distrusts Europeans. But as the bard (Elvis) said: “clean up your own backyard”.