Bijan Posted July 15, 2023 Posted July 15, 2023 https://www.securityweek.com/uk-introduces-mass-surveillance-with-online-safety-bill/ " The primary gist of the bill is that platform providers are responsible for the content available on their platforms, irrespective of who generates the content. If content is deemed harmful (child pornography, terrorist recruitment, revenge porn, bullying, self-harm, and anything the government defines as ‘illegal’), the provider can be required to remove that content. All of this sounds reasonable; but the problems start with visibility and enforcement. Enforcement is to be undertaken by the government’s own Office of Communications regulator, Ofcom. To be able to determine compliance with the law, Ofcom must have visibility on the content. That, in simple terms, implies mass government surveillance of any internet available to users within the UK. But what if the information on the platform is protected with end-to-end encryption within a messaging or communications application? That doesn’t matter; it is still subject to the law, and Ofcom must be provided access to the cleartext content. In short, the Online Safety Bill will require messaging app providers to implement some form of backdoor into the encrypted data – although the government asserts this isn’t a ban on E2E encryption itself." "At the time of writing, this bill (PDF) has passed through the House of Commons, and is currently at committee stage in the House of Lords. It is likely (not certain) that it will become law. While this would be a UK law, its reach expands to any internet platform providing services to people in the UK." "WhatsApp has stated very clearly that it will not provide a backdoor for Ofcom, and accepts that it may be blocked in the UK (as has already happened in Iran)." "Ofcom’s weapons include fines up to £18 million ($22 million) or 10% of global revenue (GDPR’s maximum is 4% of global revenue), blocking the platform, and even criminal liability for senior managers."
Bijan Posted July 15, 2023 Author Posted July 15, 2023 In all fairness, I don't think the majority of voters in the UK voted for "ban WhatsApp and Signal", so I can't see this going all the way. It's just a really weird reach for the government.
NSXCIGAR Posted July 15, 2023 Posted July 15, 2023 That approach would end online platforms. Akin to making gun manufacturers liable for all gun deaths. That's what Section 230 in the US was specifically designed to guard against although the platforms have not been abiding by that agreement and engaging in editorial behavior with no consequences which has been the cause for all of the recent social media "censorship" issues in the last 5 years.
BrightonCorgi Posted July 15, 2023 Posted July 15, 2023 Any bill that gives government more control into what you are allowed to see and know are welcome by the legislature in any country. The government can already read messages in E2E platforms.
99call Posted July 15, 2023 Posted July 15, 2023 16 hours ago, Bijan said: In all fairness, I don't think the majority of voters in the UK voted for "ban WhatsApp and Signal", so I can't see this going all the way. It's just a really weird reach for the government. I would vote to ban WhatsApp, considering it seems to be the most used tool by the Tory Government to f-over the people of the UK. The fact that conservatives seem to habitually use multiple burner phones, shows them for exactly what they are....organised crime 1
Bijan Posted July 15, 2023 Author Posted July 15, 2023 42 minutes ago, 99call said: I would vote to ban WhatsApp, considering it seems to be the most used tool by the Tory Government to f-over the people of the UK. The fact that conservatives seem to habitually use multiple burner phones, shows them for exactly what they are....organised crime So the solution is to ban citizens from using most kinds of communications that can't be eavesdropped? Unless they allow the government/intelligence to eavesdrop on them for the public good? Do you think this is being done to police conservative MPs? Do you think those in the government won't have their own WhatsApp replacement provided to them paid for by the taxpayers?
99call Posted July 15, 2023 Posted July 15, 2023 28 minutes ago, Bijan said: So the solution is to ban citizens from using most kinds of communications that can't be eavesdropped? Unless they allow the government/intelligence to eavesdrop on them for the public good? Do you think this is being done to police conservative MPs? Do you think those in the government won't have their own WhatsApp replacement provided to them paid for by the taxpayers? I'm just saying this horse bolted a long long time ago. 9/11 and most definitely before. The idea of anything private in line with benefit to the public is just false hope these days. Here in the UK I think we are the most surveilled nation in the world. Yet, if your sister gets raped, or your brother beaten to death, then go whistle...the police will say ......."computer say's no!". We have had families of late, hire private detectives, on 'dead cases' where the police have said there was no CCTV evidence.....only for the PI to find there was, the police just could not be bothered to look. Any new technology is always sold as a benefit.....it always ends up being, just another method of control, or market/voter research 1
Bijan Posted July 15, 2023 Author Posted July 15, 2023 4 hours ago, 99call said: I'm just saying this horse bolted a long long time ago. 9/11 and most definitely before. The idea of anything private in line with benefit to the public is just false hope these days. There's a difference between bad actors, or top levels of intelligence agencies being able to sometimes spy on people and sometimes not (I think Jeff Bezos of Amazon got cyber-attacked by Saudis and it "ended his marriage" when he didn't pay the hush money), and the government being able to do it legally, and openly, and with support from the technology companies. That's the difference between the situation in the US, and China. So yeah the US situation isn't perfect, as we saw from Snowden, but the China one is very likely worse. And North Korea is almost certainly worse than that. I don't think that "our rights are being infringed", therefore there's no point to worry about any further infringement to our rights, is a sensible mindset. 4 hours ago, 99call said: Any new technology is always sold as a benefit.....it always ends up being, just another method of control, or market/voter research We're on an internet/web forum. Is it a benefit? Is it a method of control or market/voter research? And let's not forget that our Australian friends have to access it via VPN, lest, god forbid, impressionable members of the public should be influenced into smoking cigars. 4 hours ago, 99call said: Here in the UK I think we are the most surveilled nation in the world. Yet, if your sister gets raped, or your brother beaten to death, then go whistle...the police will say ......."computer say's no!". We have had families of late, hire private detectives, on 'dead cases' where the police have said there was no CCTV evidence.....only for the PI to find there was, the police just could not be bothered to look. Yes.. Sadly this is my point. I wouldn't want this much surveillance even if it cut down on crime. Sadly it doesn't even do that. Since you are right and the surveillance is just about control. 1
99call Posted July 15, 2023 Posted July 15, 2023 2 minutes ago, Bijan said: I don't think that our rights are being infringed, so there's no point to worry about any further infringement to our rights is a sensible mindset. I have a family member that works for an intelligence agency, and I get the distinct impression from them, that you are much safer using floppy disks than you are Whatsapp. I hate using it, and I would never communicate anything sensitive on it. I don't view it as private in any way shape or form. I don't doubt that i'm an insignificant soul, and do not merit having my messaged looked through, but that still does not mean they are private. I would much rather meet someone in a pub, and tell them to their face.
Bijan Posted July 15, 2023 Author Posted July 15, 2023 13 minutes ago, 99call said: I have a family member that works for an intelligence agency, and I get the distinct impression from them, that you are much safer using floppy disks than you are Whatsapp. I hate using it, and I would never communicate anything sensitive on it. I don't view it as private in any way shape or form. I don't doubt that i'm an insignificant soul, and do not merit having my messaged looked through, but that still does not mean they are private. I would much rather meet someone in a pub, and tell them to their face. This isn't just WhatsApp which is owned by Facebook/Meta so that wouldn't surprise me. But also Signal which offers the same functionality but with more security focus and is run by a non profit (from what I understand). 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now