deleted by creator
Haha yes also incredibly that they had to point out this sentence “Tech companies have said scanning messages and end-to-end encryption are fundamentally incompatible.”
Very astonishing how there are some fundamental lacks of understanding from politicians advertising this. Or all on purpose
Tech companies have said scanning messages and end-to-end encryption are fundamentally incompatible.
That’s not a given. Imagine messaging is like you trying to pass a note to a classmate in school. End-to-end encryption is like using a cypher based on your friend’s social security number, crumpling up the note, and then shoving the note up Tommy’s ass for them to deliver it to your buddy. Pretty standard note-passing stuff.
Adding the ability for the government to scan your messages is like being that kid who can’t write without mouthing or whispering what you’re writing. Then the teacher says “got it! Don’t worry, I definitely definitely won’t discuss this in the beak room with the other teachers!” And then gives you a big reassuring wink and a smile while you shove the note up Tommy’s ass.
See how everyone gets to have fun in the second scenario? The best part is knowing that no teacher ever has ever done anything bad. The end.
Why must you shove things up my ass? Please stop. I am in pain.
Sounds like a skill issue
Add more RAM.
Oh, wait…
I have no idea what your point was but I’m still laughing.
I’m not surprised at all
Not really. Different websites will treat you differently depending on what country you’re accessing them from.
Ah if Internet was only websites, life would be easier.
It is! That’s what the w in www stands for.
Also a totally real fact: putting the “s” at the end of https:// is what makes it secure and it works on other things as well. Eating a brownie is unsecure and dangerous, but brownies has better security and should be consumed frequently.
Here’s some more examples of other everyday items that you can easily secure:- Oreo❎ Oreos☑️
- Sock❎ Socks☑️
- Fart❎ Farts☑️
- Douche Canoe❎ Douche Canoes☑️
Items that can’t be secured without modification:
- Potato❎ Potatoes☑️❔
- Hamburger Patty❎ Hamburger Patties☑️❔
- Fish❎ Fishes☑️❔
- Serial Killer With a Knife❎ Serial Killer With Some Knives☑️❔
Please note that for every rule, there is an exception. Take Deer for example. Deer can’t be secured. Fuck Deer, the lazy unencrypted bastards…
Do they want to lose access to… everything on the internet? Because this is how you lose access to everything.
Haha yes definitely something to follow. I’m looking forward to lists of companies that left UK because of this (as announced) and lists of companies that stay and thus prove that their end-to-end encryption isn’t a real one
I keep forgetting that the UK left the European Union. When I originally read that title I was like how the fuck could that happen? Oh Brexit. That is going to set them back decades.
Don’t you worry, EU votes on killing end-to-end encryption in private messaging next week.
Digital Brexit
Not even the United States is as determined to become a third-wonld shithole as the UK is.
republicans: “hold my beer”
The common thing here is conservatism. It has no borders and thrives on hatred, which is fundamentally human. It will alway exist as an evil. It just varies on how much power they have and is under slightly different names, but they have a common thread of beliefs that always come back. No country or person is immune to this as morally superior they think they are.
I don’t get it - where did all these idiots come from in the western developed worlds? It’s like half have forgotten history, and are hell bent on sending us into this fascist dystopia where we’ve forgotten that freedom comes with a price. Nobody likes the darker side of the internet, but punishing regular users and businesses isn’t the answer. Everyone loves to pick on the USA, and we deserve it, but it’s happening seemingly everywhere.
Because these people are always there, always waiting. We got lazy about stomping them down.
Where there is money to be made, and influence to be pedaled, Capitalism will find the person to do it for them. If you are doing it because you are evil you are a conservative, if you are doing it because you think you are actually helping the children, you are a liberal. But the outcomes are the same either way.
" Safety Bill " the fucking irony of it Tories making sure we’re the biggest clown show in the world. Well time to shutdown all those https end points and spool up jhonlewi5.co.uk to my offshore account.
“If companies do not comply, media regulator Ofcom will be able to issue fines of up to 18 million pounds ($22.3 million) or 10% of their annual global turnover.” Yet thier mates can quite happly steal tax money under PPE contracts and pump literal shit into our waterways.
Well, they already left the EU, now they want to leave the internet, too.
Well all you can say is bye bye and good luck
Okay so how would this be enforced? Highly unlikely any messaging service that offers E2E is going to release a version without it just to satisfy the UK government. So this will basically be easily thwarted by using a VPN?
The bill was changed so it no longer bans e2e encryption, it’s now the responsibility of tech companies to provide protection “where technically feasible” which basically means fuck all
where technically feasible
It gives something that can be argued about later, right? After other parts of the bill have begun to be implemented. So, further down the road if gvmt considers e.g. WhatsApp or Signal as having CSAM and not taking appropriate steps, then they can put pressure and WA/Signal can argue back about feasibility and merit.
Does that mean that when you’re sitting on a bench in the middle of a city, you could in theory snoop the passwords and banking details in clear text from the WiFi networks around you?
No. Why would it mean that?
deleted by creator
Yeah but they’re not in any way doing that.
That’s the lovely bit about putting a bill out there. The enforcement and feasibility is not the problem of the politicians anymore.
Uh it’s not impossible, just illegal.
So did Signal and others actually leave the UK market or did they fold like a wet paper napkin like we all knew they would?
By the looks of it e2ee isn’t actually banned, and if e.g. Signal says “we can’t technically scan people’s messages” then they’re given a pass… maybe. The Reuters article reads like the UK gvmt are going to be going after more Facebook-like media first, rather than encrypted private messages.
I’d love to know that as well. So if you guys have any news let’s have it
We made it safe by making it so nobody can be safe. What are you people mot understanding?!
/s
Very 1984 of them
I wonder where the book was written and set, i wonder
Kinda makes you wonder
Very 1984 and also very 1894
Literally facial recognition cameras at every single stop light in UK.
I like your PROBLEM light.
Earlier this month, junior minister Stephen Parkinson appeared to concede ground, saying in parliament’s upper chamber that Ofcom would only require them to scan content where “technically feasible”.
Big if true.
It depends how they interpret “technically feasible”. It’s technically feasible to force everyone to compromise their encryption.
There must be exceptions for banks. Otherwise, brb gonna steal some easy £
The thumbnail for this article really bothers me. They just copy pasted the same string of 1’s and 0’s throughout the entire screen and colored it lime green on a black background for that Matrix effect.
I thought it was apropos… just as fake as the encryption solution now enshrined in law in the UK.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
LONDON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - Britain’s long-awaited Online Safety Bill setting tougher standards for social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok has been agreed by parliament and will soon become law, the government said on Tuesday.
“Today, this government is taking an enormous step forward in our mission to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online,” she said.
Once the bill receives royal assent and becomes law, social media platforms will be expected to remove illegal content quickly or prevent it from appearing in the first place.
They will also be expected to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content like pornography by enforcing age limits and age-checking measures.
Instead it will require companies to take action to stop child abuse on their platforms and as a last resort develop technology to scan encrypted messages, it has said.
Earlier this month, junior minister Stephen Parkinson appeared to concede ground, saying in parliament’s upper chamber that Ofcom would only require them to scan content where “technically feasible”.
The original article contains 334 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 48%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
How to contact your MP https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-an-mp-or-lord/contact-your-mp/
