United Kingdom

5126 readers

683 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

UK backed away from breaking end-to-end encryption in its new Online Safety Bill. Although privacy advocates are celebrating, their victory is far from complete. (cepa.org)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by 0x815@feddit.de to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In the physical world, the limits are clear: no democratic government is permitted to monitor citizens in their homes without a court order, even to prevent domestic violence or child sexual abuse. In the digital world, though, the answer remains unresolved. Child safety advocates believe that governments must be able to unlock private messages, while tech companies and privacy activists see a smokescreen for mass government surveillance.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] pre@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The law is in no way fixed and passing it will still be a terrible thing for a country that claims it wants to be a tech colossus.

Westminster hasn't blinked, they intend to pass a law which they then intend to not prosecute. Selectively enforced laws are awful.

This government remains awful, the bill remains awful, and the sooner all of westminster can be shut down the better. We will only be safe if we can free the country from the wankers in Westminster palace completely and entirely.

Ban westminster, not encryption!

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 years ago

Direct rule from King Charles III would probably be better than the current government

[–] Tweak@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My understanding is they've done bugger all. MP's behind the bill have merely said they won't use the provision, primarily because there is no sufficient technical means to do so, but the wording of the bill hasn't changed.

If the bill goes through as is then businesses may be compelled to create the means to do so, regardless of it breaking encryption - maybe they won't do it right away, but they'll have the perogative under law. It wouldn't be too much more effort to throw in a gag order and prevent public disclosure. I'm sure Signal and a few others would kick up a stink and leave if they were targeted, but I could see Facebook and Google signing up, for a price. Hell I'd be more surprised if WhatsApp didn't already have backdoors.

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Tbh you can just do it client side once it's decrypted. It may not be that hard to circumvent but the vast majority wouldn't bother.

I'm hoping this just doesn't get passed in its current form. But not sure the house of lords will have much understanding of this stuff.

[–] peter@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They want to do client side scanning which technically keeps E2E encryption but basically destroys the principle behind it. Today it's CSAM, tomorrow its terrorism related phrases, next year its "anti-government sentiment"

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Which won't affect the majority of people at all. Which is how they get away with it.

The people who do care will just move to safer alternatives.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Literally. I believe most criminals aren't using WhatsApp. Moreso some weird thing called "EncroChat"

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly.

But you do hear a lot about Facebook groups for it and shit. I'm guessing many of them are just stupid as fuck.

Which I guess is the target of this.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 years ago

If they're that stupid can't they just have people infiltrate the group like they do with encrochat