This bill is mandated from Davos. It will be implemented regardless of any opposition.
I’ve started donating to the EFF, let’s give them all the help they can to fight this crap.
>End-to-end encryption ensures that governments, tech companies, social media platforms, and other groups cannot view or access our private messages, the pictures we share with family and friends, or **our bank account details.**
How often are you sending your bank details over WhatsApp? 🤔
The pictures you share with friends and family? You mean the ones you email to each other or share on Facebook without end-to-end encryption?
If it wasn’t for end to end encryption, we wouldn’t have needed Isobel Oakshott to release Matt Hancock’s WhatsApp messages
Why would anyone be comfortable with their private correspondence with other people being read by a third party? Why does no one seem to give a shit about their privacy anymore?
The amount of “the only people complaining have something to hide” comments from people here are absolutely disgraceful.
We all deserve privacy. We all deserve to be able to talk to someone without someone else eavesdropping. We all deserve to have our personal information remain private.
It’s a slippery fuckin’ slope otherwise.
I’m from the UK but it’s a US site asking the UK…also it wants to use my own email client to send to this one address, lol. Might wanna use some commas and a BCC!
Good luck cracking down on E2E encryption. Only the clueless could consider it workable.
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?” mfs when they close their curtains at night.
Anything that is done by or for the UK government can be done by or for other governments, or even future bad iterations of the British government. Also criminals could take advantage.
So why do MI5 and MI6 have so much to hide then? If that was the case, MI5 and MI6 would be operating openly.
People forget anything that can be done for or by a government, can be done by or for a criminal.
People should look at the Edward Snowden revelations again.
Remember anything that can be done by or for the British government can and will be done by and for a third-world dictator.
From (via) the link
>If the Online Safety Bill passes, it would open a backdoor for scanning that will be exploited by bad actors like cyber criminals, domestic abusers, and authoritarian governments.
So it’s not just about the British government. They have to realise that they are not the only power involved. Edit: nor will they ever be.
After the way the British Government expected me to spend 10 days at home due to someone else’s positive test for a respiratory virus that posed an extremely low relative risk to me (precisely because I did not have the treatment that cannot be talked about negatively), the British Government have proven as a corporate body that they are not to be trusted.
“you have nothing to hide” is a common response used to dismiss concerns about privacy violations. However, it is a logical fallacy known as the “fallacy of irrelevant conclusion” or “non sequitur.”
​
The fallacy lies in the fact that having something to hide is not the only reason why someone may value their privacy.
This sort of thing only encourages over-heavy enforcement of minor offences. Take a look at China or even protests in Canada.
Perhaps if the anti-terror police were to stop complaining about privacy and start profiling by demographic factors then they might not need to spy on devices remotely, but gain access to devices so as to make the issues here a non-starter.
Here’s the EFF’s case against the bill, summarised. Note the last sentence quoted and particularly the last two/three words.
>As the Online Safety Bill enters the House of Lords Committee Stage, I urge you to protect end-to-end encryption and the right to private messaging.
>
>This bill will undermine encryption. Clause 110 mandates that websites and apps must proactively prevent harmful content from appearing on messaging services. That’s going to lead to universal scanning of all user content, all the time. It’s not compatible with encryption, or our right to privacy. Privacy for all should be a goal—but this bill would undermine privacy for everyone.
>
>If the Online Safety Bill passes, it would open a backdoor for scanning that will be exploited by bad actors like cyber criminals, domestic abusers, and authoritarian governments. It could generate wider harms and make UK businesses and individuals less safe online—including the very groups that the Online Safety Bill intends to protect. It could also make the problem of child safety worse, not better. Abused minors, for instance, need private and secure channels to report what is happening to them. This isn’t safety—it’s censorship…
I’ve separated the emails so that you can easily paste and Bcc here -> https://jpst.it/38WmR
Honestly this’ll just be the porn registry bill all over again. The moment someone points out that anyone could just fucking hack them all and leak everything they’ll be all for this bill.
Btw I have lots to hide and there I don’t want a Tory minister being able to see my shit.
Far more relevant is I know quite a few Tory ministers would be in prison if their internet was freely available to be investigated.
The government will find its third time unlucky with this nonsense. Both Cameron and May wanted this too before someone with a mind sat them down and told them exactly why it is completely unworkable.
24 comments
[deleted]
This bill is mandated from Davos. It will be implemented regardless of any opposition.
I’ve started donating to the EFF, let’s give them all the help they can to fight this crap.
>End-to-end encryption ensures that governments, tech companies, social media platforms, and other groups cannot view or access our private messages, the pictures we share with family and friends, or **our bank account details.**
How often are you sending your bank details over WhatsApp? 🤔
The pictures you share with friends and family? You mean the ones you email to each other or share on Facebook without end-to-end encryption?
If it wasn’t for end to end encryption, we wouldn’t have needed Isobel Oakshott to release Matt Hancock’s WhatsApp messages
Why would anyone be comfortable with their private correspondence with other people being read by a third party? Why does no one seem to give a shit about their privacy anymore?
The amount of “the only people complaining have something to hide” comments from people here are absolutely disgraceful.
We all deserve privacy. We all deserve to be able to talk to someone without someone else eavesdropping. We all deserve to have our personal information remain private.
It’s a slippery fuckin’ slope otherwise.
I’m from the UK but it’s a US site asking the UK…also it wants to use my own email client to send to this one address, lol. Might wanna use some commas and a BCC!
`altond@parliament.ukandersondw@parliament.ukandersonr@parliament.ukbakewellj@parliament.ukbenjaminf@parliament.ukbennettn@parliament.ukberkeleyafg@parliament.ukblackgv@parliament.ukbulld@parliament.ukcampbelljs@parliament.ukchakrabartis@parliament.ukclementjonest@parliament.ukcolvillec@parliament.ukdsouzaf@parliament.ukfinlayi@parliament.ukfosterab@parliament.ukfoxcr@parliament.ukfrasers@parliament.ukfrostd@parliament.ukgilberts@parliament.ukgrantchesterj@parliament.ukgriffithslj@parliament.ukharrist@parliament.ukhaskels@parliament.ukhilary.hard@btinternet.comholgovernmentwhips@parliament.ukhollickrc@parliament.ukholmesc@parliament.ukmcnallyt@parliament.ukmerrong@parliament.ukmoyland@parliament.ukprasharu@parliament.ukstevensonw@parliament.ukstowellt@parliament.ukthorntong@parliament.ukwalmsleyj@parliament.ukwarsis@parliament.ukwilliamssb@parliament.ukcontactholmember@parliament.uk`
Good luck cracking down on E2E encryption. Only the clueless could consider it workable.
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?” mfs when they close their curtains at night.
Anything that is done by or for the UK government can be done by or for other governments, or even future bad iterations of the British government. Also criminals could take advantage.
So why do MI5 and MI6 have so much to hide then? If that was the case, MI5 and MI6 would be operating openly.
People forget anything that can be done for or by a government, can be done by or for a criminal.
People should look at the Edward Snowden revelations again.
Remember anything that can be done by or for the British government can and will be done by and for a third-world dictator.
From (via) the link
>If the Online Safety Bill passes, it would open a backdoor for scanning that will be exploited by bad actors like cyber criminals, domestic abusers, and authoritarian governments.
So it’s not just about the British government. They have to realise that they are not the only power involved. Edit: nor will they ever be.
After the way the British Government expected me to spend 10 days at home due to someone else’s positive test for a respiratory virus that posed an extremely low relative risk to me (precisely because I did not have the treatment that cannot be talked about negatively), the British Government have proven as a corporate body that they are not to be trusted.
“you have nothing to hide” is a common response used to dismiss concerns about privacy violations. However, it is a logical fallacy known as the “fallacy of irrelevant conclusion” or “non sequitur.”
​
The fallacy lies in the fact that having something to hide is not the only reason why someone may value their privacy.
This sort of thing only encourages over-heavy enforcement of minor offences. Take a look at China or even protests in Canada.
Perhaps if the anti-terror police were to stop complaining about privacy and start profiling by demographic factors then they might not need to spy on devices remotely, but gain access to devices so as to make the issues here a non-starter.
Here’s the EFF’s case against the bill, summarised. Note the last sentence quoted and particularly the last two/three words.
>As the Online Safety Bill enters the House of Lords Committee Stage, I urge you to protect end-to-end encryption and the right to private messaging.
>
>This bill will undermine encryption. Clause 110 mandates that websites and apps must proactively prevent harmful content from appearing on messaging services. That’s going to lead to universal scanning of all user content, all the time. It’s not compatible with encryption, or our right to privacy. Privacy for all should be a goal—but this bill would undermine privacy for everyone.
>
>If the Online Safety Bill passes, it would open a backdoor for scanning that will be exploited by bad actors like cyber criminals, domestic abusers, and authoritarian governments. It could generate wider harms and make UK businesses and individuals less safe online—including the very groups that the Online Safety Bill intends to protect. It could also make the problem of child safety worse, not better. Abused minors, for instance, need private and secure channels to report what is happening to them. This isn’t safety—it’s censorship…
I’ve separated the emails so that you can easily paste and Bcc here -> https://jpst.it/38WmR
Honestly this’ll just be the porn registry bill all over again. The moment someone points out that anyone could just fucking hack them all and leak everything they’ll be all for this bill.
Btw I have lots to hide and there I don’t want a Tory minister being able to see my shit.
Far more relevant is I know quite a few Tory ministers would be in prison if their internet was freely available to be investigated.
The government will find its third time unlucky with this nonsense. Both Cameron and May wanted this too before someone with a mind sat them down and told them exactly why it is completely unworkable.