4 ms·

Is this the same Signal that threatened to "absolutely, 100% walk" away from UK if the Online Safety Act "undermined" their privacy? So I guess it didn't, and

by k1t 2y ago

Is this the same Signal that threatened to "absolutely, 100% walk" away from UK if the Online Safety Act "undermined" their privacy? So I guess it didn't, and they'll find a reason why this won't either. All meaningless talk.

MadnessASAP 2y ago
My understanding is that the UK removed clauses that would undermine Signals security. Regardless of which, Signals didn't, and was never going to make concessions to the UK that would compromise it's users privacy. Their strategy then as it seems to be now, is to do nothing but say they disagree and wait for the regulators to forcibly remove them from the market. That is if they did themselves non-compliant with a countries laws, they'll do nothing and wait to be evicted rather then comply or voluntarily leave.
- cuu508 2y ago
  Yep, that's the strategy now too https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/112535637912550792 https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/112535637912550792
- fauigerzigerk 2y ago
  >My understanding is that the UK removed clauses that would undermine Signals security. My understanding is that the law empowers the regulator (Ofcom) to require the use of accredited scanning technology if they consider it necessary and proportionate. No further changes to the law are necessary for that to happen. But as of now, no such accredited technology exists. It seems likely that any client-side scanning technology that the EU mandates would also get accreditation in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/end-to-end-encryption-and-child-safety/end-to-end-encryption-and-child-safety https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/end-to-end-encryp...
- dfawcus 2y ago
  Nothing changed in the UK Online Safety Bill before it became an Act, the troublesome clauses are still there. All that happened is the government accepted that it was not currently practical to implement what they desired. So 'promised' not to require any providers to do so yet. If they deem it practical one can expect them to instruct providers. Hence Apple and Signal both ignored their prior statements, and continue to provide their respective encrypted message and speech services.

by k1t 2y ago

MadnessASAP 2y ago

My understanding is that the UK removed clauses that would undermine Signals security. Regardless of which, Signals didn't, and was never going to make concessions to the UK that would compromise it's users privacy. Their strategy then as it seems to be now, is to do nothing but say they disagree and wait for the regulators to forcibly remove them from the market. That is if they did themselves non-compliant with a countries laws, they'll do nothing and wait to be evicted rather then comply or voluntarily leave.

cuu508 2y ago
Yep, that's the strategy now too https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/112535637912550792 https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/112535637912550792
fauigerzigerk 2y ago
>My understanding is that the UK removed clauses that would undermine Signals security. My understanding is that the law empowers the regulator (Ofcom) to require the use of accredited scanning technology if they consider it necessary and proportionate. No further changes to the law are necessary for that to happen. But as of now, no such accredited technology exists. It seems likely that any client-side scanning technology that the EU mandates would also get accreditation in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/end-to-end-encryption-and-child-safety/end-to-end-encryption-and-child-safety https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/end-to-end-encryp...
dfawcus 2y ago
Nothing changed in the UK Online Safety Bill before it became an Act, the troublesome clauses are still there. All that happened is the government accepted that it was not currently practical to implement what they desired. So 'promised' not to require any providers to do so yet. If they deem it practical one can expect them to instruct providers. Hence Apple and Signal both ignored their prior statements, and continue to provide their respective encrypted message and speech services.