The U.K. Parliament is close to passing the Online Safety Bill, which threatens global privacy by allowing backdoors into messaging services, compromising end-to-end encryption. Despite objections, no amendments were accepted. The bill also includes content filtering and surveillance measures. There’s still a chance for lawmakers to protect privacy with an amendment preserving encryption. A recent survey shows the majority of U.K. citizens want strong privacy on messaging apps.

  • Scrubbles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    791 year ago

    People glady give up privacy under the guise of helping children, while nothing is actually done to protect children. More at 11.

    • @SpunkyBarnes@geddit.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      641 year ago

      Actually, politicians give up public privacy under the fiction of helping children, repeatedly.

      I cringe every time “online” and “children” are uttered in the same breath.

      • Scrubbles
        link
        fedilink
        English
        171 year ago

        Which really sucks because us in tech know there’s more that we could be doing for sure, but politicians/big tech would rather grandstand with these BS policies that get the masses to agree, while giving up freedom, and not actually solving any problems.

    • sub_o
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 year ago

      Indeed, Prince Andrew is still roaming around Pizza Express in Woking.

      I’m expecting this weakening of encryption / surveillance is to protect rich people by preemptively punishing dissidents who are organizing against them. It’s the step that authoritarian countries like China, Saudi, etc have been using against their own people, either with sweeping regulations, or just straight up buying pegasus spyware.

  • @floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    381 year ago

    U.K. civil society groups have condemned the bill, as have technical experts and human rights groups around the world.

    Has there been pushback from banks and other big businesses whose activity fundamentally depends on secure encrypted communications? Has there not been pushback from the intelligence services? Or would they be exempt?

  • GVasco
    link
    fedilink
    English
    321 year ago

    Current world politicians are so tech illitirare it’s bewildering. Supposedly they have experts and think tanks at their disposal to help them in these sorts of endeavours, for what? It’s insane how much survailance has been ranked up in the past decade.

    • meat_popsicle
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      Supposedly they have experts and think tanks at their disposal to help them in these sorts of endeavours, for what?

      Experts aren’t hired to craft or guide legislation. They’re hired to give a pathway to a destination.

      In other words, politicians already know what they want and what they’re going to do, they need a way to make it accepted by society and to force corporations to play ball. “Experts” and “think tanks” will always align with that agenda.

      • GVasco
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        I guess you’re right, it’s just frustrating this world.

    • DJDarren
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      It’s not just politicians, it’s so many of the older people running the companies and pulling the strings.

      My own boss is an absolute nightmare for not understanding that technology that could make our jobs here so, so much easier - and crucially much much more efficient. And yeah, I get that we could endlessly chase the promises of tech, but I’m forever being told to wind back my reliance on online tech because the boss won’t spend the money needed on some computers and would rather do things on paper. I just nod, agree, then carry on doing things my way, because it has proven results. There’s a bunch of us here who rely on Google Docs for collaboration software, because the boss refuses to spend any money on anything better suited. He didn’t need it back when he set up the company 20 years ago, so he doesn’t need it now!

      Drives me fucking mad.

      As to your point on experts; our government ministers actively reject experts who actually know about the issues, choosing instead to listen to people who’ll tell them what they want to hear.

      • GVasco
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Narcissism and confirmation bias runs rampant in our governments and top executives.

  • melroy
    link
    fedilink
    321 year ago

    I doubt that E2E services will care. Matrix will not change. Just like many other services. They are just insane. You can’t also just break TLS in UK only. haha they are crazy.

  • @TheYang@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 year ago

    I mean, imagine if non-british companies just went “well, no encryption for you, then.”

    And disabled TLS too.

    Online Banking would probably just have to… stop.
    And a lot of other pages wouldn’t load on most browsers requiring https

    • Echo Dot
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Online Banking would probably just have to… stop.

      What will happen is usually what happens when the UK government introduces a brain melting stupid law (basically any time they do or say anything).

      The government will suddenly find out that all the people that said that their stupid law won’t work, were right, and that it doesn’t work. Shockingly.

      Then it will end up getting hastily revised into something moderately functional which will necessitate modifying it to the point at which it effectively doesn’t exist, and we all get on with our lives. Repeat process ad nauseum.

      See the porn age verification law. Which never ended up happening.

  • @MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’d need Microsoft/Apple/Google to agree to this to get these client side message scrapers on devices.

    You’d need commercial/closed source e2e messaging services to agree to add a backdoor.

    Why would they? Not that they care about end users, but corporate interests will take issue with it too. And it’s a bad look. UK is just one market for these global companies. I’m not an expert in such things so I’m basically talking out of my ass, but I think it makes sense.

    But even if they somehow manage it, people will learn how to circumvent it. And then there’s open source operating systems and e2e messaging which are immune to this.

    Edit: grammar.

  • @musictechgeek@lemdit.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 year ago

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” —Benjamin Franklin

    • comicallycluttered
      link
      fedilink
      English
      201 year ago

      For those who care, here’s the actual context of that quote, which has everything to do with taxes and nothing to do with privacy or safety from the government.

      The “Safety” he’s referring to are bribes paid from certain landowners in order to be exempt from having their land be used defensively by the then-British colonies of America during the French and Indian War. So, literally paying for their physical safety.

      If anything, it was very pro-government control, and an example of the shit modern politicians do as well because he was speaking about the these actions being for the “greater good” of the people.

      But quotes gonna quote, I guess. I assume the tech-libertarians picked it up at some point and it spread from there. Feels very much like something from the “don’t tread on me” mid-2000s Tea Party era.

      Not that I think the modern sentiment is wrong, to be fair, but the meaning of the quote has changed so much that I think it’s kind of pointless to attribute it to Franklin now unless we’re talking about taxing private land for military purposes.

        • comicallycluttered
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Of course, otherwise we wouldn’t still be using it.

          But in the context of internet privacy, specifically, my guess is it was initially popularized by tech-libertarians or those who hung around on the conspiracy theory areas of the internet (Venn diagram overlaps a bit there, though not entirely).

          There’s no doubt it was used as a quote for privacy in general before that.

          I should hold back on my assumptions, though, so thanks for reminding me of that. Could obviously be very wrong.

        • @TheOakTree@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think they were referring specifically to the use of the quote in the context of privacy in tech.

          At least, that was the whole reason they pointed out the discrepancy to begin with.

          Edit: had the comments loaded up an hour ago, finally had time to read and respond, and then immediately saw their response to you from 49 minutes ago… rip.

  • chemical_cutthroat
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    I’m getting really close to just not using the internet anymore. I only use it to stream movies, and doom scroll lemmy right now, anyway. The only reason I have an email is for spam. Take awake the only facade of privacy I have and I may as well hang it all up and walk away.

    • Ste
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Still internet is important for many people to talk and come together, to discuss and fight against power abuse. So we all should care.

    • Echo Dot
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ignoring the British government is 99% of what makes someone British.

      They are forever coming up with stuff like this. And just like your example with Australia, nothing ever happens, because the people who would be required to actually make it happen have no real interest in doing so, and the people who will try to get the law passed are too tech illiterate to be able to tell if it has or not.

  • @esaru@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Does anyone know if this is threatening messengers based on federated networks like XMPP as well? Legally and practically?

    • @Raisin8659OP
      link
      English
      61 year ago

      This is probably not going to answer your question, but the law doesn’t seem to focus on protocols/network topologies, but focuses on providers with certain sizes. So if the protocol is used by large techs, then they might have to do something on their side to comply with the law, depending on etc…

    • @Raisin8659OP
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      No, but the tech companies/orgs/individuals that provide such platforms potentially have global reach. If they comply to the UK demands, they may decide it’s easier to do it everywhere. It also sets up precedents for other countries to follow suit.