the real misdirection is focusing on individuals and their blame. The real question is why does UK political system produces these people rule and how do they keep ruling.
Both parties were captured by the aristocracy/super rich, call them what you will, and they support a total surveillance of a population they obviously fear and want tools to persecute as they see fit. Starmer is a perfect example of this, he's done more damage arguably than the tories did in over a decade. Their betrayal of the country will throw the elections to the far right too, that is the only protest vote against the status quo, and they will affix themselves in power and implement even worse privacy.
A popular reform party would fix the problems but the aristocracy is too greedy and arrogant for that, thinking they can control a far right party or otherwise shut them out electorally indefinitely and continue to sell out the public to the rich, even as discontent is increasing and the plutocratic rot is visible on the surface and spread throughout the whole.
Well if they commit to this, it will never affect "e2ee" options that collaborate with feds e.g. whatsapp, imessage. If you can kill Refaat Alareer with it rest assured you will be able to keep it in your phone anytime
That is longstanding, the US and the UK both have been writing laws broadly enough for them to take down anyone for them, or at least charge, we all just trust it won't be abused, but as we've seen with the uk and their bad faith terror designations, that trust is misplaced, and the mask is coming off society. They aren't pretending anymore, and cynically think "democracy" such as it is, is already dead in all but name, it's only the citizenry that doesn't know it yet, and or is contesting it.
Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.
If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.
If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of "intended recipient") then TLS is E2E encrypted.
Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?
If not, then the technically correct usage doesn't matter which is a point I've made in another comment as well.
And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not
Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?
If not, then yes, TLS is "end to end" as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each "end" to each "end" is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.
Does it say that explicitly in the document? I know that's the overall message they're getting at, but actually typing that out in the doc is darkly funny.
Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.
If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.
Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.
Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.
Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one's identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature.
We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor's younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.
We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.
We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.
Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.
Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation's border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.
For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals.
The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy. Let us proceed together apace.
This was written in 1993? Huh, I keep seeing cyber punks around in different contexts too, like some music mixes from some cyber punk festival at least.
In the old days, the British Empire steamed open everyone's mail and read it, at least coming from the colonies like India.
Cyberpunk is a genre first and foremost. A critique of capitalism set in a corporate dystopia with transhumanist themes.
A lot of the aesthetic is rooted in the culture of the time period that it was created in (the 80s). The cultural fear, more specifically. A time where American corporations, and by extension the US government and population, were afraid of the Japanese economic boom and saw a future where the dollar was replaced by the yen and Japanese supplanted English as the lingua franca of the world, Japanese culture was exported the way American culture is, and Americans started eating their meals with chopsticks instead of forks.
If so we should all start sending cryptic sounding gibberish around the world. Like from random lists send emails to foreigners with some random gibberish like product codes written in that look like encrypted messages, xg0-fs39450, or whatever, just as a form of protest.
if im alone in my car, i'll just start talking gibberish or about that time i kicked a cyber-dolphin through the moon. just in case the man is training some ai on what my phone's microphone picks up.
That doesnt mean they werent ignorant or inept, they were just aware of what was happening to them, and in most cases for rights it was only after decades or centuries of mistreatment. Its a reaction not a prevention.
As for toxic people in power, thats a lot harder to argue but toxic people enter and leave government all the time. It can be obvious sometimes who will be shit but theres only so many choices and again a significant portion of people are ignorant or inept.
So google, amazon and Microsoft are hostile actors.every cloud provider is an enemy of uk government. They have gardeners (at best) or lawyers ( most probably), which did their own research.before writing these abominations.
At the same time, they want to give all medical datas in the NHS to palantir.
This is the apoteosis of incompetence.
Gee why does the capitalist oligopoly fear communication they can't monitor it's not like they are doing anything wrong and have anything to fear from little old us
Shit-flinging desperation at the realization that they have failed to contain dissent via internet-based coordination. Elbit and the UK's protection of property was defeated by persistent disruption thanks to the work by Palestine Action. Unlike previous forms of communication, the empire has had tremendous difficulty wrestling control away because the materiality of the internet is so dispersed, accessible, and impossible to restrict without dire economic and military consequences.
At this point it feels like they're being paid to make people vote for Reform who will then make great use of all the surveillance infrastructure that Labour and Tories have put in place
No, beyond the legalese. For example, the comma placement in:
which, unknown to them threatens,
The comma should go after "them", because "unknown to them" constitutes the entire aside.
If you delete the aside in this, it reads "which national security", whereas it should read "which threatens national security".
This is just the first one I found; I didn't go hunting for them. It's one of those grammatical mistakes that actively ruins the cadence of the sentence as you read it in your head.
I have complete sympathy for non-native speakers writing papers, but it also raises the question of whether they properly understand the source material they're referencing.
I will inform you that this excerpt is correct English. There needn't be an article like "a" or "the" before "possibility". It reads awkwardly in everyday language, but that really is just innocent "legalese" phrasing.
What I see here is that the UK is a hostile entity towards humanity. So, fuck the UK government and all their parties. Since we're here, fuck the French government as well, just in case.
Oh yeah? I'll train an army of crows to transfer messages in exchange for specific shiny objects.
Seriously though - the constant hypocrisy and attempt to make our lives undeniably worse for their control obsession is either going to force our hand or end with the enslavement of the human race. These people are truly mad.
There's a common saying in Germany that applies.
Basically translates to: "Those Brits are crazy", but the literal translation would be: "The Brits are spinning" (yarn).
There's no problem with Signal's encryption. It's the same issue with any and to end encryption scheme, at either end is a person who can very easily copy and paste everything that has been said in the conversation and send it off to anybody they wish.
No of course. I meant that if at least one party in the UK gov is using signal, with end to end encryption, they are no longer using it because they are now considered ‘hostile actors’
Not running down Signal or any other e2ee client out there. But there are in fact ways to prevent the recipient from retaining and, at least via the device they are using to receive the messages, copying the data within messages. Several banking apps actually include such measures. And perhaps even having a Mission Impossible-esque self destruct on the message where it re-encrypts and then deletes the messages after they have been viewed is a viable way to prevent retention. It would not prevent somebody from using another device to snap a picture of the information in the message, but it would definitely cut down on people's ability to easily leak private conversations that are intended to stay that way.
Nothing like police showing up for reasons that you don't understand and charging you for crimes that you were not even aware that you were committing.
I forget which page this was on the in book of Democracy, but I'm pretty sure it was towards the end.
I remember in the 1990s when you went to download Netscape you could only use the 40-bit encryption if you were in Europe, not the 128-bit encryption people in the USA could use.
what the fuck mate. Just take a shit on your citizens and wonder why the largest empire in the world now sucks off an orange paint face micro dick to make sure people still recognize they might be someone...
It's an independent review of some UK laws concerning national security, and the reviewer is warning that the laws could be used against people unfairly. Note the last sentence of the section: "Serious responsibility is put on police to use the power wisely."
Engagement in Hostile Activity
6.16. Under Schedule 3 a person may be engaged in hostile activity even though unaware that their activity is hostile activity[footnote 428].
So a person could be examined on account of their wholly inadvertent and morally blameless conduct.
Examples could include a journalist carrying confidential information whose significance to national security he did not understand, or the victim of planted material. The examining officer could act if there was no possibility that the person was aware that its dissemination might be in the interests of a foreign state, or even that they were carrying the material.
The Code of Practice to Schedule 3 refers to the innocent dupe, who “…may believe that they are working for a legitimate business, or charity, which is in fact being utilised specifically for the purpose of espionage”[footnote 429].
6.17. Since hostile activity does not require any knowledge or tasking by a foreign state[footnote 430], the phenomenon of double-ignorance could arise. A person may be engaged in hostile activity if they do something which, unknown to them threatens, national security and which is in the interests of another State, also entirely in the dark. For example:
The developer of an app, whose selling point is end-to-end encryption which would make it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor communications. It is a reasonable assumption that this would be in the interests of a foreign state even if though the foreign state has never contemplated this potential advantage.
The lobbyist for a foreign firm, who seeks to persuade an electronic chip manufacturer to build its factory in France rather than the UK. This would engage the UK’s economic well-being in a way relevant to national security even though France is entirely unaware of the lobbying and the lobbyist is only doing his normal day job.
A journalist carrying information that is personally embarrassing to the Prime Minister on the eve of an important treaty negotiations affecting UK security interests.
6.18. In each of these cases the motive of the app developer/ lobbyist/ journalist may be more sinister than first appears, so permitting an officer to examine whether the individual is a witting or unwitting agent of a foreign state might be described as necessary in the right circumstances. Serious responsibility is placed on police to use the power wisely.
It's an independent report by Jonathan Hall KC presented to parliament. I think everyone is under the impression that those highlighted paragraphs are a statement of law, they're not. But they are the guy's (correct) interpretation of existing law - namely, Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
The report itself is a good thing, coz now we know how far the UK government will try to stretch their powers and what we need to repeal when Labour (and the Tories) fucks right off.
As part of his summary:
Some of the powers and offences extend well into the zone of political activity,
journalism, protest and day-to-day human activity. However useful, they must
be tested against misuse and overreach.
I understand that in a system with clients and servers having encrypted communications between the server and the clients is not enough to have end-to-end encryption.
Even then I find it strange to cobsider TLS not end-to-end, the whole gist of TLS is enabling confidential communications between 2 network nodes without any of the intermediate nodes participating in the communication being able to decrypt the data.
Yeah it's confusing. The implicit assumption in E2EE is that it is taking place on the application layer, while transport encryption happens on the, well, transport layer, or somewhere in between. I think the authors in the linked document mentioned chat communications between users which is definitely application layer.
This is such a stupid law. A lot of things require encryption, even the government itself need end-to-end encryption. Are they going to ban Signal and Briar next?
These laws are made by people who have the slightest knowledge about the subjects they're making the laws on. Oppressing the people is their only concern, everything is else anti-nationalist activity.
This is the first biggest step towards a totalitarian society: cut all (end-to-end encrypted and private) communications across citizens. I hope the people there realise this and protest against this law or something. U.K. is literally becoming Oceania.
The United Kingdom didn't stop being an evil empire or it's own volition. The culture of oppression was never really challenged, the pool of potential victims just severely reduced.
Considering how trivial it is to build, and the plethora of working examples on github, I expect anyone is one chatgpt prompt away from running afoul of this.
That's often the point of this kind of legislation. The review from which this comes points out that the law is very broad and a lot is left up to the discretion of the police about how to apply it. In other words, they implement a law that just about everyone is breaking, then enforce it against environmentalists, critics of Israel, privacy advocates, socialists, anarchists and human rights campaigners, while leaving Meta execs, MPs, banks and the far-right untouched.
No clue where that is from and if it's already in effect, but what's marked here only talks about developers, not users. Still, what a world to live in
The British ought to actively strike against and shut this down ASAP or they will lose their country to complete fascism. Say goodbye to any aspect of democracy.
Isn't like building a basic encryption tool coding 101? I didn't build one when I was learning to code, but I did have to make a caesar cipher scrambler/unscrambler with python years ago. I don't have the code or remember how to do it, but does that make me a hostile actor now?
166 Comments
favoredponcho@lemmy.zip · 150 pts · 182d
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 124 pts · 182d
Korkki@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 182d
What is the fundamental difference. Evil men and arrogant idiots might as well be the same thing.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 49 pts · 182d
Korkki@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 182d
the real misdirection is focusing on individuals and their blame. The real question is why does UK political system produces these people rule and how do they keep ruling.
hector@lemmy.today · 17 pts · 182d
Both parties were captured by the aristocracy/super rich, call them what you will, and they support a total surveillance of a population they obviously fear and want tools to persecute as they see fit. Starmer is a perfect example of this, he's done more damage arguably than the tories did in over a decade. Their betrayal of the country will throw the elections to the far right too, that is the only protest vote against the status quo, and they will affix themselves in power and implement even worse privacy.
A popular reform party would fix the problems but the aristocracy is too greedy and arrogant for that, thinking they can control a far right party or otherwise shut them out electorally indefinitely and continue to sell out the public to the rich, even as discontent is increasing and the plutocratic rot is visible on the surface and spread throughout the whole.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 182d
vatlark@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 182d
Ironically that's kinda the argument being made in the document above
minorkeys@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 182d
They don't care how it affects normal people's lives or what we sacrifice to pay for their incompetent leadership.
lauha@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 182d
It doesn't affect just normal people, but when you make encryption weaker, the foreign state (i.e. bad actor) surveillance also benefits.
minorkeys@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 182d
It denies normal people the ability to retain their privacy from corporate and government surveillance.
iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 182d
Which is exactly what any government these days wants.
ObsidianZed@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 182d
"Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice."
or something like that...
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 121 pts · 182d
No way this lasts or holds up to basic scrutiny. End to end encryption is a de-facto standard for so fucking much technology.
Like fucking HTTPS.
tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml · 26 pts · 182d
Well if they commit to this, it will never affect "e2ee" options that collaborate with feds e.g. whatsapp, imessage. If you can kill Refaat Alareer with it rest assured you will be able to keep it in your phone anytime
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 54 pts · 182d
Yes, the trick is to outlaw it entirely then enforce the law selectively against those whom you find politically awkward.
gtr@programming.dev · 9 pts · 182d
TLS is not typically considered end-to-end encryption. It's transport encryption.
RadioEthiopiate@lemmy.zip · 108 pts · 182d
Our governments are hostile. Act accordingly.
DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml · -6 pts · 182d
Ulrich@feddit.org · 10 pts · 182d
All of them, AFAIK
douglasg14b@lemmy.world · 89 pts · 182d
So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?
Essentially everyone's a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.
North@lemmy.org · 33 pts · 182d
That's what the governments in 1984 could do as well.
hector@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 182d
That is longstanding, the US and the UK both have been writing laws broadly enough for them to take down anyone for them, or at least charge, we all just trust it won't be abused, but as we've seen with the uk and their bad faith terror designations, that trust is misplaced, and the mask is coming off society. They aren't pretending anymore, and cynically think "democracy" such as it is, is already dead in all but name, it's only the citizenry that doesn't know it yet, and or is contesting it.
gtr@programming.dev · 6 pts · 182d
TLS is not typically considered end-to-end encryption. It's transport encryption.
Lysergid@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 182d
I don’t get it. E2ee is about encryption in transit not encryption at rest. TLS sounds exactly like e2ee
iglou@programming.dev · 12 pts · 182d
E2E is about the sender encrypting, and only the intended receiver decrypting, with nothing in the middle able to read the data.
TLS is not designed for that, as the server you connect to is not necessarily the intended receiver, yet it can see everything.
With E2E, you can send data to a server, which is not the intended receiver, and it won't be able to read it.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 181d
Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.
If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.
If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of "intended recipient") then TLS is E2E encrypted.
iglou@programming.dev · 0 pts · 181d
The definition of E2EE has evolved since the concept surfaced. You seem to be stuck with the original meaning.
TLS does not fit the modern definition.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 180d
Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?
If not, then the technically correct usage doesn't matter which is a point I've made in another comment as well.
And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not
dendrite_soup@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 179d
douglasg14b@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 181d
Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?
If not, then yes, TLS is "end to end" as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each "end" to each "end" is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 75 pts · 182d
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 181d
Seems appropriate, since the game was invented by brits and the Imperium is an unholy amalgamation of the Roman and British Empires
Piperpiper1@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 180d
Does it say that explicitly in the document? I know that's the overall message they're getting at, but actually typing that out in the doc is darkly funny.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 180d
It's just a fancy, rosy version of just saying "innocence proves nothing".
idiomaddict@lemmy.world · 67 pts · 182d
Paving roads makes it easier for an invading army to get around.
BarticusR@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 182d
No-one's invading Lincolnshire then.
Chais@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 181d
Easier, not possible.
ulterno@programming.dev · 10 pts · 182d
This is great.
If you are (or know) a UK citizen, please let them send this with the above context to their representative.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works · 61 pts · 182d
A Cypherpunk's Manifesto
By Eric Hughes
hector@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 182d
This was written in 1993? Huh, I keep seeing cyber punks around in different contexts too, like some music mixes from some cyber punk festival at least.
In the old days, the British Empire steamed open everyone's mail and read it, at least coming from the colonies like India.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works · 28 pts · 182d
This is cypherpunk, not cyberpunk. Common roots, but important distinction.
Ulrich@feddit.org · 2 pts · 181d
Cyberpunk is an aesthetic style.
Cypherpunk is not.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 181d
Cyberpunk is a genre first and foremost. A critique of capitalism set in a corporate dystopia with transhumanist themes.
A lot of the aesthetic is rooted in the culture of the time period that it was created in (the 80s). The cultural fear, more specifically. A time where American corporations, and by extension the US government and population, were afraid of the Japanese economic boom and saw a future where the dollar was replaced by the yen and Japanese supplanted English as the lingua franca of the world, Japanese culture was exported the way American culture is, and Americans started eating their meals with chopsticks instead of forks.
AnnaFrankfurter@lemmy.ml · 59 pts · 182d
Yes end to end encryption is for hostile actors why don't you send your nuclear launch codes in plain text.
privatepirate@lemmy.zip · 36 pts · 182d
Rules for thee not for me.
NarrativeBear@lemmy.world · 51 pts · 182d
If I were to send a physical letter written in code that can only be decrypted with a cipher would I now be breaking the law?
What about radio or telephone conversations in code?
Can I still password protect my zip files or encrypt my NAS or PC before boot?
AnnaFrankfurter@lemmy.ml · 31 pts · 182d
Using password protection for files is definitely work of terrorists you should be imprisoned for life. \s
mech@feddit.org · 27 pts · 182d
According to this legislation, using https is against the law.
ulterno@programming.dev · 8 pts · 182d
Not as long as UK is the root CA, I suppose.
helvetpuli@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 181d
Normally the certificate signing authority should never see, not need to see anybody's private key, so no.
ulterno@programming.dev · 0 pts · 181d
But they can, taking help from the DNS (or ISP), send you to a fake website.
hector@lemmy.today · 13 pts · 182d
If so we should all start sending cryptic sounding gibberish around the world. Like from random lists send emails to foreigners with some random gibberish like product codes written in that look like encrypted messages, xg0-fs39450, or whatever, just as a form of protest.
mrtuttle@lemmy.sdf.org · 5 pts · 181d
if im alone in my car, i'll just start talking gibberish or about that time i kicked a cyber-dolphin through the moon. just in case the man is training some ai on what my phone's microphone picks up.
hector@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 181d
The speedquack cyrocrunk failed, need pryoram ciclicogram asap,
lemonwood@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 182d
Make sure you only use transparent envelopes.
apftwb@lemmy.world · 49 pts · 181d
HTTPS ❌🇬🇧
HTTP ✅🇬🇧
SSH ❌🇬🇧
rlogin ✅🇬🇧
liking625@lemmy.world · 38 pts · 182d
thats what happens when we as society become ignorant and inept, and therefore we vote for inept and ignorant people to represent us.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 22 pts · 181d
They are not all inept.
They know exactly what they are doing.
It is a hostile act to create information the state isn't privy to. That is a very deliberate act.
Frigger@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 181d
Fascista
Muscle_Meteor@discuss.tchncs.de · 13 pts · 182d
When has the majority not been ignorant and inept?
Back when societies collective knowledge was like 4 things?
liking625@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 179d
to me when they defended their rights and prevented certain toxic people from staying in power
Muscle_Meteor@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 179d
That doesnt mean they werent ignorant or inept, they were just aware of what was happening to them, and in most cases for rights it was only after decades or centuries of mistreatment. Its a reaction not a prevention.
As for toxic people in power, thats a lot harder to argue but toxic people enter and leave government all the time. It can be obvious sometimes who will be shit but theres only so many choices and again a significant portion of people are ignorant or inept.
Nyadia@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 181d
I think this is more malice than it is ineptitude tbh.
ReallyCoolDude@lemmy.ml · 37 pts · 181d
So google, amazon and Microsoft are hostile actors.every cloud provider is an enemy of uk government. They have gardeners (at best) or lawyers ( most probably), which did their own research.before writing these abominations. At the same time, they want to give all medical datas in the NHS to palantir. This is the apoteosis of incompetence.
anthony@lemmy.canthonyscott.io · 13 pts · 181d
All those companies willingly hand over our data when asked. At this point it's almost a feature
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 181d
Obviously not. They're happy to give MI5 a backdoor into all their systems.
The age old question - malicious or stupid.
LemmyBruceLeeMarvin@lemmy.ml · 36 pts · 181d
Gee why does the capitalist oligopoly fear communication they can't monitor it's not like they are doing anything wrong and have anything to fear from little old us
orioler25@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 181d
Shit-flinging desperation at the realization that they have failed to contain dissent via internet-based coordination. Elbit and the UK's protection of property was defeated by persistent disruption thanks to the work by Palestine Action. Unlike previous forms of communication, the empire has had tremendous difficulty wrestling control away because the materiality of the internet is so dispersed, accessible, and impossible to restrict without dire economic and military consequences.
jali67@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 180d
I’m just baffled Labour is trying to die on this hill.
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 180d
I think Labour is just trying to die.
Etzello@midwest.social · 2 pts · 180d
At this point it feels like they're being paid to make people vote for Reform who will then make great use of all the surveillance infrastructure that Labour and Tories have put in place
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 181d
The autonomous murder bots are not complete yet
bobzer@lemmy.zip · 33 pts · 182d
Was this written by a native English speaker?
It's hard to take seriously with so many grammatical errors
veeesix@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 182d
It’s called legalese.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 182d
No, beyond the legalese. For example, the comma placement in:
The comma should go after "them", because "unknown to them" constitutes the entire aside.
If you delete the aside in this, it reads "which national security", whereas it should read "which threatens national security".
This is just the first one I found; I didn't go hunting for them. It's one of those grammatical mistakes that actively ruins the cadence of the sentence as you read it in your head.
bobzer@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 182d
And worse mistakes:
I have complete sympathy for non-native speakers writing papers, but it also raises the question of whether they properly understand the source material they're referencing.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 182d
I will inform you that this excerpt is correct English. There needn't be an article like "a" or "the" before "possibility". It reads awkwardly in everyday language, but that really is just innocent "legalese" phrasing.
bobzer@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 182d
Thanks for the correction. Rereading it I can kind of see if they mean possibility as an abstract concept, so I'll take the L on it.
But I still maintain it's a pretty fucked way of phrasing it.
tyler@programming.dev · 7 pts · 182d
That is perfectly grammatical English, especially in legal texts.
Vitaly@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 182d
Probably ai generated let's be honest here
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 182d
It's British, so no.
jjlinux@lemmy.zip · 31 pts · 181d
What I see here is that the UK is a hostile entity towards humanity. So, fuck the UK government and all their parties. Since we're here, fuck the French government as well, just in case.
trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf · 28 pts · 182d
Oh yeah? I'll train an army of crows to transfer messages in exchange for specific shiny objects.
Seriously though - the constant hypocrisy and attempt to make our lives undeniably worse for their control obsession is either going to force our hand or end with the enslavement of the human race. These people are truly mad.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 181d
They choose force your hand. Draw the line where you wish. They will arrive at it given enough time.
attero@discuss.tchncs.de · 26 pts · 181d
There's a common saying in Germany that applies.
Basically translates to: "Those Brits are crazy", but the literal translation would be: "The Brits are spinning" (yarn).
Obelix knows best.
1stQ@feddit.org · 2 pts · 180d
The spiders,
the Brits!
/s
What does it say in the original French version?
akilou@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 182d
So every financial institution and everyone using WhatsApp
Redvenom@retrolemmy.com · 10 pts · 181d
I think whatsapp it's already sharing chats with a few governments
als@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 24 pts · 182d
So they're happy for us to read all their messages, right?
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 181d
I heard reddit sends out warnings for updating certain comments these days.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 181d
“You are a hostile actor if we say you are a hostile actor.”
Ghostie@lemmy.zip · 23 pts · 181d
grapefruittrouble@lemmy.zip · 23 pts · 182d
If i remember correctly, a few weeks ago a government party had their signal chat leaked. Those people have since ceased using signal right?
buddascrayon@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 181d
There's no problem with Signal's encryption. It's the same issue with any and to end encryption scheme, at either end is a person who can very easily copy and paste everything that has been said in the conversation and send it off to anybody they wish.
grapefruittrouble@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 181d
No of course. I meant that if at least one party in the UK gov is using signal, with end to end encryption, they are no longer using it because they are now considered ‘hostile actors’
incompetent@programming.dev · 2 pts · 180d
Their favorite saying: "Rules for thee, not for me."
Gathorall@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 181d
Well, yes, generally the recipient of a message has to get access to its content.
buddascrayon@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 181d
Not running down Signal or any other e2ee client out there. But there are in fact ways to prevent the recipient from retaining and, at least via the device they are using to receive the messages, copying the data within messages. Several banking apps actually include such measures. And perhaps even having a Mission Impossible-esque self destruct on the message where it re-encrypts and then deletes the messages after they have been viewed is a viable way to prevent retention. It would not prevent somebody from using another device to snap a picture of the information in the message, but it would definitely cut down on people's ability to easily leak private conversations that are intended to stay that way.
Ulrich@feddit.org · 0 pts · 181d
No one said there was
bluefootedbooby@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 181d
Did they also invite a journalist to the group chat?
FauxLiving@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 182d
Oh great more mens rea-less laws.
Nothing like police showing up for reasons that you don't understand and charging you for crimes that you were not even aware that you were committing.
I forget which page this was on the in book of Democracy, but I'm pretty sure it was towards the end.
hector@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 182d
It's in the Oligarchic Repression Chapter I think.
SilentKnight1369@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 181d
This is actually bonkers and goes to show that governments are loosing this battle, this just means that no matter what we cant stop.
Tinidril@midwest.social · 5 pts · 181d
It's not really wrong though. This kind of legislation certainly makes me hostile.
silasmariner@programming.dev · 4 pts · 181d
https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2025/10/14/a-hack-is-not-enough/ this article makes a sadly excellent point in response to you here. Fair warning: it's long. But even if you dip out early I assume you'll get the point being made
Renohren@lemmy.today · 18 pts · 182d
Setting a factory in France is a hostile activity too?
I guess using Olvid is terrorism.
matlag@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 181d
Protectind yourself from beind spied on and then potentially blackmailed is a hostile behavior!
Aqarius@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 181d
...to the blackmailer, yes.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 17 pts · 181d
Even the US used to ban the export of strong encryption algorithms. You used to have to download the stronger encryption algorithms separately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Cryptography_Extension
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 180d
I remember in the 1990s when you went to download Netscape you could only use the 40-bit encryption if you were in Europe, not the 128-bit encryption people in the USA could use.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 16 pts · 182d
what the fuck mate. Just take a shit on your citizens and wonder why the largest empire in the world now sucks off an orange paint face micro dick to make sure people still recognize they might be someone...
Cantaloupe@lemmy.fedioasis.cc · 16 pts · 181d
Makes me want more E2E encryption.
m3t00@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 181d
https has got to go
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 180d
ROT13 too.
87Six@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 181d
Not sure which one is dumber
The USA or UK
el_abuelo@programming.dev · 13 pts · 181d
Yes.
hydroptic@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 181d
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 181d
Dad?
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 182d
What document is this from?
apparia@discuss.tchncs.de · 16 pts · 182d
It's a screenshot of this report from a review of the UK's security and terrorism legislation, published in December.
TechRadar article discussing the specific encryption issue here.
I was skeptical given the grammar issues others have pointed out but it seems legitimate.
sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today · 8 pts · 182d
I would like to know too please
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 182d
I found it:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-of-the-independent-reviewer-of-state-threats-legislation/report-of-the-independent-reviewer-of-state-threats-legislation-accessible
It's an independent review of some UK laws concerning national security, and the reviewer is warning that the laws could be used against people unfairly. Note the last sentence of the section: "Serious responsibility is put on police to use the power wisely."
sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 180d
Awesome, thanks!
tastemyglaive@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 182d
hold on hold on, it's in my bookmarks somewhere I just saved a screen and prioritized alarmism
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 182d
I found it and posted a link in this thread.
CocaineShrimp@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 182d
Can't wait to hear about all the upcoming data breaches. RIP all your medical records...
vane@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 182d
Don't talk without electronic devices around because it might be hostile activity.
Finalsolo963@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 14 pts · 181d
I am trans and a U.S citizen, the UK govt cannot comprehend how hostile I can towards it.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 181d
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 4 pts · 181d
Hell yeah
hamburger@discuss.tchncs.de · 13 pts · 182d
Can you provide a source for this document?
droolio@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 182d
The source can be found here: https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/ (direct link)
It's an independent report by Jonathan Hall KC presented to parliament. I think everyone is under the impression that those highlighted paragraphs are a statement of law, they're not. But they are the guy's (correct) interpretation of existing law - namely, Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
The report itself is a good thing, coz now we know how far the UK government will try to stretch their powers and what we need to repeal when Labour (and the Tories) fucks right off.
As part of his summary:
reabsorbthelight@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 181d
Do you have a link to the law?
Buckshot@programming.dev · 10 pts · 181d
It's from this report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69411a3eadb5707d9f33d7e8/E03512978_-_Un-Act_The_National_Security_Act_in_2024_Accessible.pdf
I emailed my MP about this before Christmas and am yet to get a reply
kilgore_trout@feddit.it · 4 pts · 181d
That is irritating. Consider writing anew.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 11 pts · 180d
Fuck this shit. The UK is not longer a free country. And fuck Israel even more for their damned work over the decades to make this possible.
lemmywinksthegerbilking@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 178d
it never has been a free country
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 2 pts · 177d
Now that I think about it you are right.
affenlehrer@feddit.org · 11 pts · 182d
Yeah, who needs TLS anyways?
gtr@programming.dev · 6 pts · 182d
TLS is not typically considered end-to-end encryption. It's transport encryption.
undu@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 182d
I understand that in a system with clients and servers having encrypted communications between the server and the clients is not enough to have end-to-end encryption.
Even then I find it strange to cobsider TLS not end-to-end, the whole gist of TLS is enabling confidential communications between 2 network nodes without any of the intermediate nodes participating in the communication being able to decrypt the data.
gtr@programming.dev · 2 pts · 182d
Yeah it's confusing. The implicit assumption in E2EE is that it is taking place on the application layer, while transport encryption happens on the, well, transport layer, or somewhere in between. I think the authors in the linked document mentioned chat communications between users which is definitely application layer.
ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk · 11 pts · 182d
Fucking hell...
HrabiaVulpes@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 181d
Bar to become enemy of British crown is getting lower and lower...
North@lemmy.org · 10 pts · 182d
This is such a stupid law. A lot of things require encryption, even the government itself need end-to-end encryption. Are they going to ban Signal and Briar next?
These laws are made by people who have the slightest knowledge about the subjects they're making the laws on. Oppressing the people is their only concern, everything is else anti-nationalist activity.
This is the first biggest step towards a totalitarian society: cut all (end-to-end encrypted and private) communications across citizens. I hope the people there realise this and protest against this law or something. U.K. is literally becoming Oceania.
Gathorall@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 182d
The United Kingdom didn't stop being an evil empire or it's own volition. The culture of oppression was never really challenged, the pool of potential victims just severely reduced.
Windex007@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 182d
Considering how trivial it is to build, and the plethora of working examples on github, I expect anyone is one chatgpt prompt away from running afoul of this.
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 18 pts · 182d
That's often the point of this kind of legislation. The review from which this comes points out that the law is very broad and a lot is left up to the discretion of the police about how to apply it. In other words, they implement a law that just about everyone is breaking, then enforce it against environmentalists, critics of Israel, privacy advocates, socialists, anarchists and human rights campaigners, while leaving Meta execs, MPs, banks and the far-right untouched.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 182d
Yup, it's surveillance police state shit.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 182d
nonentity@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 181d
If they’re not doing anything wrong, they don’t need to read private communications.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 181d
Welcome to the resistance
biotin7@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 181d
Reminder, rules for thee, but not for me
Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 181d
Look mate yaint paid ya proivocy loicence fer ages.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 181d
I paid it, but the transaction was private. Have a nice day.
floofloof@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 180d
We got one! A terrorist right here!
minorkeys@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 182d
Does the government have the right to monitor any and all communications corporate, private or political?
DancingBear@midwest.social · 6 pts · 182d
minorkeys@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 182d
"...would make it more difficult for UK security and intelligence services to monitor communications..." As if they have a right to do so already.
1984@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 182d
Not surprised with the mindset of current admin. Awful people.
Ulrich@feddit.org · 7 pts · 182d
mlg@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 181d
sneak up into a dark street corner at night
"Ay you got that ed25519?"
jeffep@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 181d
No clue where that is from and if it's already in effect, but what's marked here only talks about developers, not users. Still, what a world to live in
m3t00@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 181d
always wanted to be a hostile witness
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 181d
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 6 pts · 181d
For their own use they have one that would have been a simple off the shelf option for others.
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 181d
Frenchgeek@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 181d
The whole government is currently using the famous ROT26 encryption algorithm.
Lor@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 181d
Wtaf?
DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 182d
Thank god I'm not British.
Etzello@midwest.social · 3 pts · 180d
What actual document is this?
Tayl@feddit.org · 2 pts · 180d
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69411a3eadb5707d9f33d7e8/E03512978_-_Un-Act_The_National_Security_Act_in_2024_Accessible.pdf
Etzello@midwest.social · 1 pts · 179d
Thank you, appreciate it
Yliaster@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 181d
The British ought to actively strike against and shut this down ASAP or they will lose their country to complete fascism. Say goodbye to any aspect of democracy.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 182d
GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 182d
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 180d
Link to article?
orioler25@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 181d
I mean, they wouldn't be wrong, but they don't know why they aren't wrong.
lemmywinksthegerbilking@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 178d
the feds are so pissed they can't break encryption, which is essentially just math, are they gonna ban math?
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 2 pts · 178d
Isn't like building a basic encryption tool coding 101? I didn't build one when I was learning to code, but I did have to make a caesar cipher scrambler/unscrambler with python years ago. I don't have the code or remember how to do it, but does that make me a hostile actor now?