[HN Gopher] Signal says it'll shut down in UK if Online Safety B...
___________________________________________________________________
Signal says it'll shut down in UK if Online Safety Bill approved
Author : rntn
Score : 368 points
Date : 2023-02-25 12:24 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| SSLy wrote:
| dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34923075 Signal would
| 'walk' from UK if Online Safety Bill undermined encryption
| (bbc.com)
| abigail95 wrote:
| Are they going to pull out of Iran too?
|
| Why hurt the people that you're trying to help. If this law
| passes they should do everything they can to increase
| availability of Signal in the UK.
| voxic11 wrote:
| Yeah its weird to see this after reading
| https://signal.org/blog/help-iran-reconnect/
| peterfirefly wrote:
| Iran doesn't have much reach outside of Iran. The UK does.
| abigail95 wrote:
| Reach to do what? Signal is open source software.
|
| UK jurisdiction ends at its borders. If they don't like
| Signal they can ban their own citizens from using it. I don't
| understand what possible "reach" they could use to stop
| Signal exporting its products globally.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| Extradition agreements exist. They can even be used with
| fictitious charges.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| I don't imagine Signal is much concerned with complying with
| Iranian law. If you don't employ Iranians in Iran or operate
| infrastructure there, why would you care?
| bbarnett wrote:
| Exactly. It isn't as if you would be arrested in (for
| example, randonly chosen) France, then extradited to Iran for
| trial.
|
| But it could easily happen to the UK.
| btbuildem wrote:
| Knowing nothing about the bill, the title of it tells me it's
| something that will compromise online safety -- and indeed, seems
| like it.
|
| The one tasty morsel here is the (unprecedented?) threat of
| holding corporate executives criminally liable for harms. Of
| course it's over something so nebulous as "would someone think of
| the children!?" -- I would love to see this become more of a
| trend over the massive harms corporations are routinely causing
| and getting away with.
| whitemary wrote:
| Corporate executives literally control the UK government.
| andsoitis wrote:
| Bold claim. Can you name a few corporate executives who
| control the UK government and in what specific ways they do?
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| Of course the only time CEOs could be held responsible is over
| the stupidest law imaginable.
| srj wrote:
| This is the case in some other countries already (e.g. India,
| Russia).
| twodave wrote:
| Corporations and governments are not responsible for keeping
| children safe online. Parents are. It is far past the time we
| should have learned that letting kids interact with strangers
| online is no different than it is at the park or the gas station.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Safety, like security, is best when layered. This bill appears
| to be absolute garbage, but as a parent doing my best to
| balance my kids' online autonomy and safety, I want the online
| analogue of reasonably safe roads and cars for them.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Hurry! Let's approve this liberticide bill using the old "for
| children safety" argument before AI allows pedophiles to create
| their own real looking virtual child porn at home, and we run out
| of excuses to justify it.
| wyager wrote:
| I wish American companies would simply start ignoring silly
| foreign directives and force those countries to implement
| internet-blocking themselves. That way, the cards are on the
| table, and it's clear to everyone who's actually responsible.
| friend_and_foe wrote:
| So I've noticed recently, signal has quick responses in message
| notifications now, implying that the client reads your plaintext
| messages.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Secure communications and government restrictions on content are
| *inherently* incompatible.
| legrande wrote:
| We still have choice of jurisdiction for cryptography projects.
| Look at Liberland[0]. So the UK is fast becoming a mini-china.
| Just don't do crypto projects there then.
|
| [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgdj9k/inside-liberland-a-
| cr...
| hnarn wrote:
| http://archive.today/xMtaI
| [deleted]
| neverrroot wrote:
| Sad state of affairs. This is just one of so many things many are
| willing to accept in the face of "dangers". It's on us, and our
| desire to be protected from all possible things.
| kypro wrote:
| [flagged]
| screamingninja wrote:
| [flagged]
| steponlego wrote:
| Does Signal still "need" your phone number?
| pas wrote:
| yes. probably that's how they keep spam to a minimal.
| steponlego wrote:
| How's that make sense?
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Barrier of entry.
| leshenka wrote:
| It's harder and more expensive to mass-register with phone
| numbers. With one e-mail server you're essentially your own
| service provider with practically infinite amount of
| addresses for mere $5 a year.
| xbar wrote:
| Cheers, UK.
| amelius wrote:
| Nobody actually cares about these things except HN and perhaps
| a few other people.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| I wonder how much leverage Signal has here, if any. I have a
| friend whose partner worked at a high level in the UK Gov in the
| foreign affairs area. Still don't have any idea of what they did
| exactly, other than vague but incredibly interesting stories.
| They mentioned it was the app they were told to use for
| communication with official contacts. This was a number of years
| ago though.
| sbaiddn wrote:
| From the spooks POV thats not a problem, that's a solution!
|
| (Assuming Signal isnt compromised, then its a wash)
| tao_oat wrote:
| Also posted yesterday:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34923075
| digianarchist wrote:
| It could be worse. Labour could be in government [0].
|
| [0] - https://labourlist.org/2023/02/for-the-online-safety-bill-
| to...
| my_city wrote:
| The UK is an authoritarian, privacy-less, censorship-rife
| hellhole.
| danjac wrote:
| Having grown up in, and subsequently emigrated from the UK, I
| would say that Britain is a weird place when looked at from a
| distance.
|
| The class system has led to a society where the middle classes
| consider themselves the moral guardians of the working class,
| while looking up at the upper classes with a mixture of
| contempt and envy. Middle-class right wing readers of the Daily
| Mail and left wing readers of the Guardian are more similar in
| that regard than either would like to admit.
|
| So (while coming from a different political place) both want to
| crack down on the evils of the internet to Protect the Children
| and, of course, to save the working classes from themselves
| (and protect their neighbourhoods: think of the property
| prices!).
|
| As both Conservatives and Labour need their votes,
| authoritarian cracking-down on issue du jour is always a good
| vote winner. Today it's the internet, back in the 80s it was
| MDMA and rave parties, back in the 1800s it was gin palaces and
| gambling. Same thing though: Britain's self-appointed moral
| guardians and their representatives in the media and parliament
| wagging their finger at everyone else.
| AuthorizedCust wrote:
| Affirmed by gross mass-proliferation of automated ticketing
| machines on UK roads.
| Lio wrote:
| You mean average speed cameras?
|
| If so, just stop speeding if you don't want a ticket. Go to a
| track day if you want to race.
|
| If you mean ANPR for tax and insurance, well again just pay
| the tax and insurance. It's not that hard.
| AuthorizedCust wrote:
| You're missing the point. We don't need a surveillance
| society to achieve societal goals. But the UK made that
| choice. What does that say about the UK?
|
| The mere presence of a potential harm does not justify all
| means to correct the harm.
|
| Where do we draw the line?
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| You could say the same about the US.
| karaterobot wrote:
| But why would you need to in this case, since the article is
| about the UK? Just to start an internet fight I guess.
| richwater wrote:
| UK doesn't arrest you for carrying pepper spray.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The only weapon you're allowed to carry in the UK is a
| disapproving look.
| sh4rks wrote:
| And everyone seems to carry that one
| TheSecondMouse wrote:
| For which we are all heavily armed.
| jjgreen wrote:
| Look out George! The bastard's got a disparaging look!
| (*)
|
| (*) Obscure Sweeny reference, if you get it, you're too
| old to be here Grandad
| implements wrote:
| The incapacitating kind of pepper spray is treated as a
| Section 5 'Firearm' in the UK, and would land you in a
| world of trouble.
|
| You can get unpleasant smelling / badly staining / hard to
| remove spray which acts as a deterrent by making an
| attacker easily identifiable, but that's about it I
| believe.
| localplume wrote:
| Do you mean the other way around? Pepper spray is illegal
| in the UK (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/import-controls-on-
| offensive-wea...) but its legal in all states in the US.
| elephanlemon wrote:
| The UK is a good demonstration of why the US constitution is
| important. They have substantially weaker rights to freedom
| of speech, right to bear arms, and protection from
| unreasonable search and seizure. Of course the United States
| has tried hard in many cases to weaken or get around these
| protections, but it seems reasonable to say that Americans
| are still much more protected than citizens of the UK.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| - freedom of speech.
|
| Most Americans misunderstand what their freedom of speech
| actually entitles them to. What your freedom of speech
| actually covers is represented via other legislations over
| here. And much as I think our government is a farce, we do
| have access to tell our politicians that. Frankly, if
| recent politics have taught us anything, it's that freedom
| of speech doesn't protect us from a shitty government being
| formed.
|
| - right to bear arms
|
| I'm glad we don't. It's a fucking stupid right in our
| modern age. How many shootings do you guys need before you
| wake up and join the rest of the civilised world with
| tighter gun control. And for what it's worth, you can own
| guns legally in the UK. We just don't allow unhinged people
| to roam the streets with guns.
|
| - protection from unreasonable search and seizure
|
| We have that in the U.K.
|
| Given all the problems the US police force suffer from,
| you're really not in a position to be gloating about
| protections from crooked cops.
|
| Don't get me wrong, the US does get a lot of things right
| too. But I wouldn't say it's ahead of the U.K. (nor most of
| Europe) in terms of rights. Roughly equivalent perhaps, but
| not so far ahead that we should all be modelling ourselves
| after you.
| MoreSEMI wrote:
| I don't think you addressed any of his points.
|
| Let's say americans don't understand what their rights to
| speech mean. It doesn't matter since you didn't repudiate
| the fact that they may have stronger speech rights.
|
| You are glad that you don't have the right to bear arms.
| But that does not seem to me to refute that a
| constitution is important to prevent erosion of rights or
| that the US is ahead in terms of rights. Just that you
| personally don't care about that right.
|
| Finally, you state that in the U.K there is also a
| protection from unreasonable search. Fair enough. But is
| it stronger than what is in the US? Is it protected in
| form of a constitutional right or just a law that can be
| repealed at any time?
|
| The strongest argument is that despite these apparent
| constitutional guarantees, it has not prevented police
| from infringing on these rights. I would agree. But that
| seems to me to be an issue of enforcement. Not having
| these would mean there would be no legal basis to change
| police behavior, only a social impetus. That may be
| enough but I would like to have both options.
| andrewaylett wrote:
| What is "unreasonable", and regardless of the theoretical
| protections, are you at risk and do you have any
| practical recourse?
|
| The scale of Civil Asset Forfeiture in the US suggests to
| me that large sections of US society are at risk and have
| no practical recourse.
|
| Does the US having a written constitution actually help
| its society to retain their rights, or is it a fig leaf
| covering the rights you've already lost in practice, and
| an entitlement preventing society from changing rules
| that benefit those with power who exercise "rights" that
| ought not be so set in stone?
|
| In practice, the state may compel speech from the
| powerless:
| https://thehill.com/homenews/3256719-47-states-require-
| the-p...
|
| In practice, only some groups have the unalienable right
| to bear arms: https://www.history.com/news/black-
| panthers-gun-control-nra-...
|
| In practice, qualified immunity means there's no way to
| hold agents of the state accountable for violating your
| rights: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/ap
| r/20/george...
|
| In the UK, Parliament has stated its intent to abide by
| the European Convention on Human Rights. It's true that
| one parliament cannot bind the next -- at any time, the
| UK parliament may decide to repeal everything and change
| even the foundations upon which our country's laws are
| built. The checks and balances in the system (including
| the House of Lords) protect us from the over-reach of a
| poor choice of government. Even with a large majority,
| and a stated aim of repealing the Human Rights Act, the
| current government has found itself unable to dismantle
| the our protections to the degree it would like.
|
| I don't think you can argue that the US constitution
| gives you an inherent advantage in maintaining your
| rights.
| MoreSEMI wrote:
| I wasn't arguing it. I was saying that the response
| failed to actually address the GP in the way you have.
| balls187 wrote:
| In the US our rights are mostly protected by one's
| ability to pay for legal protection.
|
| I don't know how it works in the UK.
|
| Having rights is all well and good, but in the US we've
| see. countless cases of government infringing on those
| rights requiring government to resolve them (via legal
| proceedings).
| nsnick wrote:
| Legislation doesn't guarantee rights. If the same body
| trying to violate your rights with a bill can just pass
| another bill to repeal your rights, your rights are not
| protected. Two things are required to guarantee rights
| from a government: a constitution or charter that is
| extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system
| whose decisions can't be overturned by the elected
| government, neither of which the UK has.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| This is just a hypothetical destination at the end of the
| day.
|
| For example the POTUS gets to appoint judges which has
| lead to the courts becoming increasingly partisan. And
| Trump did a pretty good job of abusing his power left
| right and centre without any repercussions.
|
| Whereas on the flip side, UK politicians have been taken
| to court over the lawfulness of various decisions (such
| as "brexit") and PMs forced to step down over incidents
| far less serious than anything that has resulted in POTUS
| impeachments.
|
| And as much as the US constitution guarantees rights, the
| constitution can be changed. In fact 2 of the rights
| described here are amendments themselves.
|
| We can all argue about which political system offers
| greater safeguards but ultimately it's all just
| theoretical debate. A bad actor with sufficient support
| in either political system could do serious damage to the
| rights of their citizens.
|
| So I think it's a erroneous to distil the argument down
| to such a simplistic model and then argue that America is
| somehow more free than the U.K. because of it. A more
| valid argument would be that we are roughly equivalent in
| a subject that is clearly very complex.
| sjy wrote:
| > a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily
| difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions
| can't be overturned by the elected government
|
| Remember Brexit? It took them almost four years to
| achieve after the referendum, in part due to decisions by
| the constitutional court.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_S
| tat...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Mini
| ste...
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >rights to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and
| protection from unreasonable search and seizure...
|
| The trouble with this is that, while it's fine in principal
| [I'm a firm believer in the old agage _" People shouldn't
| fear their governments. Governments should fear their
| people"_ ] it doesn't really stand up to reality.
|
| The people who enshrined the "Right to bear arms" into your
| constitution envisioned it as a way to keep govenrment in
| check. If "The Man" has a musket he can oppress me. If I
| have a musket too, he can't.
|
| Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always
| going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets"
| than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it.
|
| All the right to bear arms does is lead to a situation
| where your streets are full of guns, violent crime is
| rampant and your police force is armed to the teeth and
| more akin to a paramilitary army than your friendly
| neighbourhood bobby. So that every encounter --even for the
| likes of a trivial motoring offence, which would be a 5
| minute telling off, a bit of grovelling and possibly a
| fine, anywhere else in Europe or UK-- has the potential to
| escalate into an armed stand-off or a shooting.
|
| It's just amazing that so many Americans can simply not see
| this and still have that almost evangelical belief that the
| microscopically small chance that they could overthrow some
| future government if it got out of hand [spoiler alert: you
| couldn't!] is worth the trade-off of living day to day in a
| society awash with guns, violent crime and mass shootings.
| [deleted]
| kortilla wrote:
| > some future government if it got out of hand [spoiler
| alert: you couldn't!]
|
| You absolutely could if the country had any significant
| portion of the population against the government. The
| military will quickly go into a state of disarray if half
| of the members are being told to kill their own families.
|
| > to day in a society awash with guns, violent crime and
| mass shootings.
|
| But it's not "awash". I've been in the US for >50 years
| now and have never seen any gun-related crime and only
| know one person who was robbed in the 80s in New York by
| a guy who just said he had a gun. I've have however seen
| violent crime involving fists, bats, clubs, brass
| knuckles, and knives.
|
| This is why when it comes down to it, Americans don't
| want to give up their guns. The mass shootings are
| tragic, but the probability of being impacted by one is
| so small that people don't think it's worth giving them
| up.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| > The mass shootings are tragic, but the probability of
| being impacted by one is so small that people don't think
| it's worth giving them up.
|
| In the US, there's a mass shooting on average every 22.5
| hours.
|
| You have a mass shooting more often than most people have
| a massive shit.
|
| You have a problem, whether you see it or not.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| "Mass shooting" (in the advocacy-numbers sense you're
| using it) is generally taken to mean three or more people
| hit by stuff that came out of a gun (framgents, ricochets
| count too). It is not "three people shot", much less
| "three people dead". When using this statistic, the
| average number of people killed is about one per "mass
| shooting".
|
| What's more, most of these shootings are among people who
| are participating in organized crime in bad parts of
| cities. It's not random, innocent people getting shot.
| The random, innocent people getting shot ones are the
| ones that are profitable to put on news streams, though.
| They are exceedingly rare.
|
| Using reasonable definitions of "mass shooting", the
| number so far in 2023 is 1-3.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Okay, but that's still more than any other developed
| country.
| swexbe wrote:
| > The military will quickly go into a state of disarray
| if half of the members are being told to kill their own
| families.
|
| But this would still be true if the families are fighting
| with pots and pans. And if your enemy is a drone flying
| at 10000m it really makes no difference if you're
| fighting with an AR-15 or a pan.
| joe463369 wrote:
| And British people don't want to make that trade off.
| It's odd to use our gun laws to say we're oppressed by an
| undemocratic system when the vast, vast majority of
| people simply don't want the person standing next to them
| at the till in Tesco to have a pistol under their coat.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| The timescale at which a disarmed populace becomes a
| problem is decades to centuries. It's all fine and dandy
| while you like your government. How long do you think
| it'll stay that way?
|
| There are people alive who remember being herded into
| boxcars in Germany, in 2023 a well-run social-democratic
| beacon of progress and industry in Europe.
| joe463369 wrote:
| I'm not sure what the point is here. We all agree in the
| UK that we don't want guns to be legal, so they aren't.
| An American's view that we'd be better off if they were
| is neither here nor there.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| > It's all fine and dandy while you like your government.
|
| I don't like our government. I don't think owning guns
| would improve the situation, though.
|
| What good do you think you owning a gun will do you?
| daedalus_f wrote:
| Firearms related injuries are the leading cause of death
| of children and adolescents in the USA.
|
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| This is a bit disingenuous I think. I worry people will
| infer that young children are at risk from random
| violence. That's not true.
|
| That stat goes from 0-19 years of age, and the vast
| majority of deaths are in the older segment. Like
| everywhere in the United states, it's young Black men
| killing other young Black men as part of organized crime
| or over matters of honor.
|
| If you're a parent and not participating in that world,
| you and your children have nothing to fear.
| daedalus_f wrote:
| There have been 236 shootings resulting in death or
| injury in American schools since 2010.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in
| _th...
| margorczynski wrote:
| > Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always
| going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets"
| than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like
| it.
|
| I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan.
| This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality.
|
| And we're talking about a civil war where using mass
| destruction weapons like bombardment is much more likely
| to be out of the question. Additionally it is much harder
| to differentiate friend from foe.
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >I think you should study how it went down in
| Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to
| reality...
|
| That's a different scenario. It's a lot easier
| [relatively speaking] to foment an uprising against an
| external enemy in the cause of "ridding your country of
| the invader". than it is against "the enemy within".
|
| You've only got to look at all the unpopular laws that
| get passed year after year [and not just in the US]. When
| the possibility of <unpopular law> is first broached,
| there are dark mutterings that _" People won't stand for
| it!"_. Then <unpopular law> comes into force, a couple of
| isolated people resist and get fined or imprisoned and,
| before you know it, <unpopular law> is an accepted part
| of "the system" --even if many people don't agree with
| it.
|
| You've also got to bear in mind that, when <unpopular
| law> is implemented by your own government, they will
| sell it as being for the national good. No government is
| ever going to say _' We're doing this coz we're bastards
| and want to oppress you!'_. It'll be for "national
| security" or "anti-terrorism" or "to protect the
| children". And it will fool enough of the people, so that
| the ones who do "make a stand" won't only be doing so
| against "The Man" but against most of the rest of the
| general populace too. They'll see you as being
| "unpatriotic", a "terrorist sympathiser" or a "defender
| of paedos" for taking a stand against said law.
|
| Also, oppression is incremental. It's very rare that a
| country's government moves from [perceived] democracy to
| [perceived] tyranny over night. And, there again, even
| amongst the people who would conceivably rise up,
| everyone will have their own individual "red line" beyond
| which they'll feel aggrieved enough to act. And who wants
| to be the first to stick their head above the parapet?
| margorczynski wrote:
| Well I agree that in many cases people "standing up" to
| the goverment is nothing more than a LARP and that they
| are smart enough to slowly boil the frog instead of
| pushing too hard all at once.
|
| But still, having guns puts a good guard against extreme
| situations where the boiling frog tactic doesn't work so
| much - e.g. forceful installation of a communist
| dictatorship. It won't guard us against slow
| deterioration but it can serve as a safe guard against
| hostile takeovers.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Your tradeoff, of course, is that you have no freedom in
| the US because you live with a gun pointed at you at all
| times, blanket surveillance, free speech only if it matches
| what your government approves of, and no rights.
|
| In the US you can be shot and killed by the police at any
| time, for any reason. You don't have any rights to
| retaliate.
|
| Yeah, I don't think I'll trade places.
| NDizzle wrote:
| I carry a knife, and often a gun with me while out and about.
| The UK is good with either of those things?
|
| I also insult people online, sometimes.
|
| I'm pretty much worse than Billy the Kid to modern day UK.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| > I carry a knife, and often a gun with me while out and
| about. The UK is good with either of those things?
|
| Yes, that's entirely legal in the UK.
|
| I can cross the road anywhere I like, without waiting for a
| light. The US is good with that? Oh wait, no, you can be
| thrown in jail for "jaywalking".
| nprateem wrote:
| Much, much better. I can count on no fingers the number of
| school massacres in the UK this millennium.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| If you look at homicide rates, London's is ~half of e.g.
| New York's, but the countries are really, really
| different in a lot of ways. It would make more sense to
| compare the U.S. to the European Union than to the U.K.
| Compare the U.K. to Massachusetts or something. The U.K.
| doesn't have a long land border with a violent, half-
| ruled-by-gangs developing country, doesn't have large
| rural areas, etc.
|
| The available evidence suggests that magically removing
| guns from the U.S. overnight would make a dent in
| homicide rates, but not by all that much (I would
| estimate ~20%, charitably). Americans murder much more
| than average not because they have access to guns, but
| access to guns does make them a little more effective at
| murdering.
|
| An aside, but it's always interesting to me that people
| are specifically interested in instances where a lot of
| people die _together_. I mean, who cares?
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > An aside, but it's always interesting to me that people
| are specifically interested in instances where a lot of
| people die together. I mean, who cares?
|
| The friends and families of those victims probably care.
|
| I can't say I'd be too happy if my daughter died at
| school from a completely preventable school shooting.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| ...right, my point is it's confusing that people seem to
| care _more_ when a bunch of people are killed all at
| once. Is 30 people killed all together somehow more than
| 30x as tragic as 30 independent one-offs spaced
| throughout a year?
| CHY872 wrote:
| I'm not sure about exact ratios, but in general society
| appears to agree that collective harm is worse. For
| example, the UK had 'Pals battalions' in WW1, and stopped
| when they realised that you could end up with whole
| villages losing all their young men in a single day. The
| damage to society from this tactic was too high, even if
| the camaraderie was short term better and the recruitment
| statistics were aided. If you wanted to learn more about
| why society cares more about collective death, I'd advise
| you start by researching topics like Pals battalions, on
| which plenty of research has no doubt been done.
| dalyons wrote:
| Oh cmon that's just human nature. We care a lot more
| about one of events like natural disasters than say
| automotive deaths - this isn't a special insight. Also,
| the victims of mass shootings (children at schools,
| attendees at festivals, etc) are the definition of
| innocent. That's part of the reason.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| >We care a lot more about one of events like natural
| disasters than say automotive deaths - this isn't a
| special insight.
|
| Yeah we agree about that, the interesting question is
| _why_?
|
| >the victims of mass shootings (children at schools,
| attendees at festivals, etc) are the definition of
| innocent. That's part of the reason.
|
| This is an explanation in the specific case of shootings
| nprateem wrote:
| I suppose it highlights how one person in a bad mood can
| kill 30 innocent people, instead of needing e.g. 15-30
| homicidal maniacs to do the same thing. It's not that
| confusing when you think about it.
| NDizzle wrote:
| Removing registered guns, or guns that have unfortunately
| suffered boating accidents?
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| The thought experiment is: all guns owned by non-police
| civilians magically disappear overnight. Legal or
| illegal.
| zamnos wrote:
| Ah yeah, knifes are a sticking point. London's laws are 3
| inch or smaller non-locking knifes are legal. Over that,
| you gotta have a valid reason. Having just bought it is a
| valid reason, as is being a sushi chef. But the general
| public is no longer allowed to just carry a knife within
| London city limits for no reason.
| Lio wrote:
| Being a sushi chef on the way to work might be a good
| reason to have a fixed bladed knife but being a sushi
| chef stopping off at the pub on the way home from work
| would not be.
|
| It's also worth noting that that is just for posession.
|
| Anything used as an offensive weapon, be it a < 3"
| friction folding knife or a ballpoint pen or can of
| hairspray, is covered by a different law.
|
| Here's a good run down by a barister:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI7jZ_3c8g4
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| Yeah...I see more and more China in the U.K.
|
| The U.K. has a wide-reaching internet censorship scheme too:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kin...
| circuit10 wrote:
| On https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index the UK is
| one the most democratic countries (18th), significantly higher
| than the US (30th)
|
| Edit: To be fair that's done by a UK-based company but I don't
| think they would have much reason to be biased
| wyager wrote:
| Outsourcing your critical thinking faculties to something
| called the "Democracy Index" seems profoundly unwise.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _Onhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index the UK is
| one the most democratic countries (18th), significantly
| higher than the US (30th)_
|
| Also, Calvin's dad faces an unprecedented decline in the
| polls after grounding Calvin for flushing the entire
| household inventory of toilet paper.
| vel0city wrote:
| That just seems like a joke to me. They literally have a
| House of Lords with hereditary positions which can alter the
| laws passed by the democratically elected House of Commons.
| phatfish wrote:
| The House of Lords is becoming a joke (it's just a place an
| exiting Prime Minister sends their mates now), but
| hereditary peers were abolished in 1999. Also, the HOL
| often pushes back on the more extreme legislation the MPs
| try to get through the House of Commons.
|
| But i agree the unelected nature of it is undemocratic. It
| should be replaced with a second elected house that can
| perform the same role of putting a check on the HOC.
|
| Full HOL reform would be a good way to start the move
| towards a proportional representation electoral system in
| the UK. Make the reformed second chamber a PR elected house
| and give them a slightly longer/fixed period between
| elections to shield them from the chaos of a general
| election and party politics.
| tomp wrote:
| _> Full HOL reform would be a good way to start the move
| towards a proportional representation electoral system in
| the UK._
|
| Ah, another one of those "if I were a dictator"
| comments...
|
| UK citizens have _democratically_ decided they don't want
| proportional representation. But I guess you don't care
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| > UK citizens have _democratically_ decided they don't
| want proportional representation.
|
| When was that?
| tomp wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alterna
| tiv...
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| That wasn't about proportional representation: that was
| about instant run-off: it's a vote counting algorithm,
| not an algorithm for assigning seats. For that
| referendum, they picked the worst simple voting system
| that was better than first-past-the-post, so I'm not
| terribly surprised it didn't win.
| https://ncase.me/ballot/ discusses these voting systems
| in more detail.
| Silhouette wrote:
| AV != PR
|
| In fact had the AV referendum vote gone the other way it
| is likely that the composition of our Parliament after
| the following general election would have been _less_
| proportional to the overall share of the national vote
| won by each party.
|
| AV has certain desirable characteristics if you want to
| elect a _single_ representative fairly. It makes little
| sense as a way to elect a _group_ of representatives
| fairly. It sure is a great strawman if you 're trying to
| kill off interest in real and appropriate electoral
| reform and fixing the systemic democratic deficits
| clearly evident in the current system we use to elect our
| MPs though.
| zo1 wrote:
| It's quite odd to me how we "hand wave" individual rights
| using the term "democratic" as if there is something
| intrinsic and unquestionable about it. LIke, sure 60%
| voted "democratically" for a decision to go one way. But
| what about the other 40%?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| No they haven't. They decided they don't want ranked
| choice voting (known in the UK as the 'alternative
| vote'). Proportional representation is a different
| system, which the minority Liberal Democrat party and
| others had long argued for and quite a lot of people
| regarded the substitution as a form of bait-and-switch.
| Additionally some had reservations about the scheduling
| of the referendum to overlap with local elections in
| parts of the UK.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alterna
| tiv...
| Conscat wrote:
| That comes off as a childish understanding of what votes
| in a representational democracy actually mean.
| djaychela wrote:
| >Full HOL reform would be a good way to start the move
| towards a proportional representation electoral system in
| the UK. Make the reformed second chamber a PR elected
| house and give them a slightly longer/fixed period
| between elections to shield them from the chaos of a
| general election and party politics.
|
| This is the best suggestion I've seen on HoL reform,
| ever. I mean, it'll never happen, but that really is a
| great idea, and would mean that the chamber would be
| clearly different from the Commons, which I've not seen
| another proposal making sense on this area.
| cma wrote:
| Lots of sketchy heredity stuff possible through the
| King/Queen: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogat
| ive_in_the_Unit...
| CJefferson wrote:
| The House of Commons can just pass a bill unchanged three
| times, at which point the lords cannot overrule it.
|
| Yes the rules are silly, but in practice all the House of
| Lords can do is debate, suggest changes,and delay a little.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| No they can't. The House of Lords is not completely
| powerless, but reform measures have left it with much less
| power than the House of Commons today.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
| ekianjo wrote:
| Democracy is meaningless if you are constantly under
| surveillance
| dmix wrote:
| Plus your speech is chilled in private communications, much
| of the same way limits on free speech chills public speech.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| A study shows - well that settles it. Experts said so
| _fat_santa wrote:
| Funny how the US score dropped in 2016. I don't put a ton of
| weight into these rankings, especially near the top because
| they are so subject to partisan politics. Depending on where
| you stand in politics, you could make an effective argument
| that the US democracy slipped in 2016. But you could also
| make an equal argument that Canada is far less democratic
| after the events of the pandemic, truckers protest, etc.
|
| Personally I think that the US, Canada, UK, Germany, etc
| should all fall into a general "Western Democracy" category.
| Roughly speaking we all have the same rights, though details
| differ and depending on where you stand in politics you may
| place one above the other, but at that point it becomes
| completely subjective.
|
| Bills like these erode our democracy and we have to be
| vigilant, we also need to realize that in any western
| democratic country, we are light years away from true
| authoritarianism.
| goodlinks wrote:
| The uks main export is corruption.
|
| It keeps its populus under educated and feeds them hate and
| tales of past glory.
|
| Its an embarrasment.
|
| The democracy is just another element of that fantasy world
| they project. With first past the post democracy cannot be a
| goal.
| ericmay wrote:
| You can be more "democratic" about some things and less
| "democratic" about others.
| seniorivn wrote:
| Democracy is a very weird term, dictate of the majority can
| be a democratic. We should use very specific names, like
| independence of court system, accessibility of court/lawyer
| procedures, level of politically motivated crimes(those have
| a huge impact on people's willingness to act for all of this
| to improve), freedom of speech, freedom of movement, highly
| competitive democratic procedures, freedom of economic
| entrepreneurship, freedom of personal relationships, etc
| therealjumbo wrote:
| Democracy is orthogonal too authoritarian.
| iEchoic wrote:
| Taking 60 questions across a handful of arbitrary categories
| and weighting them all equally is not a very useful
| methodology for this type of thing. It can help you
| differentiate Canada from Azerbaijan, but isn't going to be
| useful for comparing similarly-situated countries.
| circuit10 wrote:
| Well my point is just that most people wouldn't consider it
| anywhere near authoritarian, and that was a bit of an
| extreme word to use
| largepeepee wrote:
| These days I have a hard time telling the difference
| between either, because no one in a democracy will ever
| vote for crazy policies like having surveillance cameras
| pointing at themselves or having increasing harsher laws
| on freedoms both online and offline.
|
| If so many important things are not up for the vote, is
| it really a democracy?
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >>If so many important things are not up for the vote, is
| it really a democracy?
|
| Exactly. For me, this is the myth of democracy. A party
| campaigns on a manifesto containing a few cherry-picked
| policies, aimed at appealing to enough of the electorate,
| to get them elected [quite often with less than 50% of
| the vote]
|
| And, assuming they have an overall majority in
| parliament, this then means that every decision they
| subsequently make over the next 4 years is legitimised in
| advance because "you voted for this".
|
| The only true democracy would involve regular referenda,
| whenever major new policies were proposed. This should be
| technically feasible with current technology. But, given
| the last time we had a referendum in UK the people didn't
| vote for the option they were meant to, I'm doubtful we'd
| ever see such a thing implemented.
| Matl wrote:
| It is pretty authoritarian, heavy-handed and
| undemocratic, I just think people generally have trouble
| with that because Western countries are supposed to not
| be like that.
|
| I mean were it a non-western country with this level of
| surveillance, in the open corruption, expectation to
| conform, number of unelected PMs, orchestrated
| suppression of political opposition, regulation of the
| press etc. we would have no trouble calling it worse
| things.
|
| Source: lived there.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > number of unelected PMs
|
| All PMs are "unelected", or at least not elected via a
| general election, beyond their election as an MP. There's
| a reason they're called a Prime _Minister_ , not a
| president or similar. The UK doesn't directly elect the
| head of the UK government, and it never has. The PM is
| elected is the leader of the party that gains enough
| seats in parliament to form a government. Enough seats is
| determined by the simple question of "would the formed
| government have a reasonable ability to pass legislation
| in parliament, as is needed to conduct the business of
| government", nothing else.
|
| This is the UK chosen form of democracy, the US may
| prefer a more direct form of democracy, but that's not
| without its issues either.
| Matl wrote:
| Yeah, I know. That's nitpicking. What I meant was the
| number of PMs who didn't have to campaign in a general
| election, at the very least not for a good while after
| taking office, I assumed that was clear.
| avianlyric wrote:
| I'm not really sure you can separate the two. The UK
| parliamentary system doesn't require the PM to campaign,
| and never has. I don't think you can call PM "unelected"
| when the system doesn't, and has never, required them to
| get a direct mandate from the people.
|
| Many would argue that the recent trend of PMs trying to
| appear presidential, and running general election
| campaigns based on their personal brand, as problematic.
| As the PM isn't meant to be an important part of a
| persons vote. They're voting for their local MP not the
| national PM.
|
| Also every PM had to campaign in a general election. They
| need to be an MP to become PM, that requires them to run
| in a general election and win their seat.
| Matl wrote:
| > I don't think you can call PM "unelected" when the
| system doesn't, and has never, required them to get a
| direct mand
|
| Just because a system doesn't require something doesn't
| mean it is legitimate or democratic. It's a personal
| opinion for sure, but I would call that undemocratic.
| Many of the systems we in the West consider autocratic do
| have some sort of 'representation' after all.
|
| > As the PM isn't meant to be an important part of a
| persons vote. They're voting for their local MP not the
| national PM.
|
| The PM does have a fairly huge impact on how the country
| is being run, where it is headed, its foreign policy etc.
| do you want to argue otherwise?
|
| My point is the UK has had multiple PMs in a row who
| didn't have to make a case for their agenda in front of
| the people. I call that undemocratic despite what its
| system says, no system would consider itself
| authoritarian, that's a judgment passed onto them by 3rd
| parties.
|
| I think the general expectation in the UK was that this
| is tolerated because when a new PM comes in, they're
| expected to win a mandate for their agenda in a general
| election ASAP.
|
| > Also every PM had to campaign in a general election.
| They need to be an MP to become PM, that requires them to
| run in a general election and win their seat.
|
| A MP running for a local seat is something quite
| different from being a PM, but anyway this is just one
| aspect of why I think the UK isn't quite as democratic as
| it presents itself.
| golemotron wrote:
| > On https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index the UK
| is one the most democratic countries (18th), significantly
| higher than the US (30th)
|
| Democracy and lack of authoritarianism don't correlate
| perfectly. I may be understating this, actually.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I see you have falsely equated democracy with freedom.
|
| Democracy can and often does result in the most authoritarian
| systems of government, aka Mob Rule...
|
| Just because 51% agree to strip 49% of freedom does not make
| to good, proper, or ethical.
|
| Modern society fetishes democracy as the best thing ever, it
| is not
| AJ007 wrote:
| So quickly the masses are eager to vote away their
| freedoms.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| You seem to be suggesting that authoritarian and democratic
| are exclusive attributes but this isn't the case.
| Authoritarianism (the degree of control vis a vis personal
| liberty) has absolutely nothing to do with democracy (the way
| decisions are made).
|
| A dictatorship can be less authoritarian than a democracy.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > A dictatorship can be less authoritarian than a
| democracy.
|
| While it is theoretically possible, I have a hard time
| coming up with an example where that is the case. What
| dictatorship is less authoritarian than democracies?
| fIREpOK wrote:
| Any country isn't heading this way?
| sschueller wrote:
| Take a look what the EU wants to do with CSAM. Distopian
| nightmare to protect kids while at the same time make every
| single one of them a suspect.
| leshenka wrote:
| > Distopian nightmare to protect kids
|
| We know a little too well what "would somebody think of the
| childen" did to the internet in Russia.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Yeah, it's the reason da jour for getting rid of privacy.
| There's always a reason, it just keeps changing as people
| object to the old ones.
| account-5 wrote:
| I think that's a little harsh. Do you live in the UK?
| neverrroot wrote:
| A bit harsh, but doesn't miss the point entirely. The first
| time I was in London I was shocked at the number of in-your-
| face surveillance cameras. Now I grew numb, but it's still
| bad, actually worse. An estimate puts their number to 1
| camera for every 10 people.
| kypro wrote:
| In the UK if you want to buy food in the supermarket you have
| to have a HD video camera pointed in your face (often two
| cameras). When all major supermarkets introduced these
| cameras a couple of years back no one even discussed it, or
| thought it was odd, because here there is no assumption of
| privacy.
|
| I was telling a coworker recently that I always use a VPN
| while browsing the internet. He was genuinely confused, and
| was asking why I would care about privacy unless I have
| something to hide. And this isn't just one person. I've had
| similar reactions when I've told people I only use signal, or
| refuse to use cloud storage, or won't list employment history
| on LinkedIn for privacy reasons. I get that I have an extreme
| preference for privacy, but people in the UK don't even
| understand why someone like myself value privacy.
|
| This attitude is also adopted by our leaders and businesses,
| who by various means, mass surveil the public, typically
| citing "safety".
|
| The issue with the UK isn't just that our government don't
| value privacy, it's that as a people we don't even understand
| the value of privacy.
| Riverheart wrote:
| "In the UK if you want to buy food in the supermarket you
| have to have a HD video camera pointed in your face"
|
| That's also the situation in the US if you go through any
| kind of self checkout. Maybe not in your face but just
| slightly above it.
| darknavi wrote:
| Target literally has a camera on every self check out
| kiosk to show you're on video.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Doesn't London have one of the most extensive surveillance
| systems in the world sans china?
|
| I remember Xi or an official even praising London about
| that though I cant find a citation.
| avianlyric wrote:
| The UK has most CCTV cameras per capita in the western
| world. But they're pretty much entirely private cameras,
| including in London.
|
| The government has no real ability to gain access to
| those cameras beyond asking nicely, or getting an actual
| search warrant. Even then the police still have to visit
| the site with the CCTV camera, and mostly capture the
| footage by filming the screen of the CCTV system with
| their phone (I've talked to Met police officers about
| this, and seen the footage). Most of those cameras barely
| work, point in the wrong direction, aren't recording, are
| so fuzzy you can't see anything. So comparing it to China
| is an apples to orange comparison.
|
| The idea that these CCTV cameras could be used by the
| state for surveillance is laughable. The police struggle
| to get hold of the footage for actual in-progress
| investigations where they have real leads, and pretty
| much know what the footage is gonna show them already. So
| there's not a chance in hell the state could ever hope to
| get some sort of live feed of this data.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _But they 're pretty much entirely private cameras_
|
| I don't think so, they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30
| years ago and your comical suggestion that none of it
| really works is not plausible.
|
| Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of
| social signaling to remind people they're being watched -
| essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's
| panopticon.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Here some sources to backup my personal experiences
| working on CCTV tech with the Met police.
|
| > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30978995.amp
|
| Article on how much useless CCTV exists in the UK.
|
| > https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-
| are-in...
|
| Estimates 4.4 million cameras in London, only 20k run by
| councils.
|
| > they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30 years ago and
| your comical suggestion that none of it really works is
| not plausible.
|
| Perhaps you can provide some sources for your assertions?
|
| > Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of
| social signaling to remind people they're being watched -
| essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's
| panopticon.
|
| That's an entirely separate discussion.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10610-017-9341
| -6
|
| _That's an entirely separate discussion._
|
| It's well within the scope of the surveillance society
| the UK is flirting with, just as CCTV is relevant to a
| discussion about encrypted messaging software.
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >Doesn't London have one of the most extensive
| surveillance systems in the world sans china?
|
| Yes. But, to be fair, it has worked. London is lauded
| throughout the rest of the UK for its complete lack of
| violent crime
|
| </sarcasm>
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Indeed. When I was attacked near Clapham Junction and had
| a bottle smashed on my head, the police said it was too
| much trouble/costly to pull the video footage.
| Lio wrote:
| A friend had his bike stolen from outside Sainburys. They
| have high resolution viedo of it happening but refused to
| shared it with the local police without a court order.
|
| Similarly a friend that runs a bike shop near a Tesco
| can't get Tesco to share high resolution video of
| burgalars breaking into his shop. They have it but it's
| their corporate policy not to share it.
|
| On the one hand I guess right now all this surveilence is
| siloed to some degree and so less likely to be abused. On
| the other these seem like perfectly ligitimate uses of
| video to fight crime.
| schnebbau wrote:
| So why do you care about privacy if you have nothing to
| hide, then?
| rychco wrote:
| Privacy is a human right that needs no justification.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Why do you care about what I do if you aren't a snooping
| pervert?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| You have plenty to hide. Fortunately, nobody cares about
| you, at least not at the moment.
|
| Put another way: the question of whether or not you have
| "something to hide" isn't yours to answer. Your user name
| is German; you should understand this better than anyone.
| input_sh wrote:
| Can you post your credit card information here? If not,
| congrats, you have something to hide.
| orangepurple wrote:
| What's your address and phone number? We can help you
| understand.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > people in the UK don't even understand why someone like
| myself value privacy
|
| When you _do_ have such a conversation, what would you
| typically give as reason?
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >He was genuinely confused, and was asking why I would care
| about privacy unless I have something to hide...
|
| That's so oft-repeated it's become a cliche when someone is
| making a disparaging impersonation of a typical Daily
| Fail[0] reader. _" If you've nothing to hide, you've
| nothing to fear!"_ said in a braying upper class Tory
| accent.
|
| Of course, the ultimate irony was when David Cameron was PM
| and the Panama pepers came to light, exposing all his dad's
| shady dealings and secret offshore bank accounts [1].
| Cameron's spokeswoman told the press _" A family's finances
| are their own private affair"_ This kind of sums up what
| life in the UK is like. A priveleged ruling class, with
| utter contempt for the electorate; _" Do as we say. Not as
| we do!"_.
|
| [0] Daily Fail = The Daily Mail. A right-wing tabloid
| newspaper which is a by-word for the kind of zzz-elebrity
| gossip mixed with anti-immigrant "hanging's too good for
| them" ranting that [unfortunately] appeals to a large
| enough percentage of the British population, to keep the
| Tories in power, seemingly for the foreseeable future.
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-
| papers-d...
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-
| cameron-a...
|
| [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-
| camero...
|
| [1] https://archive.is/T32k4
| Silhouette wrote:
| _In the UK if you want to buy food in the supermarket you
| have to have a HD video camera pointed in your face (often
| two cameras)._
|
| Which supermarket is that? I've never seen anything overt
| like that where I usually shop and doing it covertly would
| be risky in multiple ways.
| scrlk wrote:
| This is the country where the health service, transport
| department, fire brigade (amongst a whole host of other
| government departments and public bodies) are allowed to
| access your complete internet history *without a warrant*.
|
| See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2
| 016#...
| nprateem wrote:
| This is also a country with a health service.
| ekianjo wrote:
| if you dont mind waiting years for a life saving surgery
| darknavi wrote:
| Not untrue about many parts of the US too by the way.
| nprateem wrote:
| Sure you can pay for private if you can afford it but at
| least you don't need to for less urgent things
| andsoitis wrote:
| How many people in the UK need a life saving surgery
| (urgently, otherwise they'll die), but don't get it and
| are left to die?
| LightDub wrote:
| I do. Sounds completely fair to me.
|
| If you take your democracy and rights seriously.
| favaq wrote:
| That applies everywhere in the world then; I can't think of
| an exception.
| LightDub wrote:
| Is that acceptable then because it's "happening
| everywhere" in your estimation?
|
| That should raise even greater alarm bells for you then.
|
| Perhaps it's both absolute and relative.
|
| Either way, as a nation, I'm quite sure we've jumped off
| at the deep end compared to where we were.
|
| And that's not just a feeling. Take one look at the
| idiots in charge, peel one layer back, and you'll see for
| yourself.
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >I think that's a little harsh. Do you live in the UK?
|
| I live in the UK and I agree with that. It feels like living
| in a country which is trying to commit national suicide.
|
| Not helped by the fact there seems to be nothing we can do
| about it. We're so much a vassal state to the USA that we
| don't even get to decide our own policies. So maybe better to
| say "It feels like living in a country which is being ordered
| to commit national suicide".
| jhartwig wrote:
| The US didn't want you to Brexit and you did that.
| 41amxn41 wrote:
| No one is talking about Brexit here.
| eropple wrote:
| Respectfully, I don't think you can blame the US for
| electing Tories who are swerving towards the cliff.
|
| Boris Johnson wasn't our doing. Brexit wasn't our doing.
| Neither was the cavalcade of morons to follow.
|
| We do plenty of dumb and awful things, but this is self-
| imposed.
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >Respectfully, I don't think you can blame the US for
| electing Tories who are swerving towards the cliff...
|
| No. I don't blame the US for Brexit or the Tories. But,
| as if those were not bad enough, there are the endless
| foreign policy decisions where the UK just immediately
| follows whatever the US does, even if it is economically
| suicidal.
| ineedasername wrote:
| Stop electing the people who follow them. Either way,
| it's not the fault of the US if the UK acts as a vassal
| state.
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >Either way, it's not the fault of the US if the UK acts
| as a vassal state...
|
| Maybe not totally. But history is litttered with
| unfortunate "happenings" to countries which refused to
| ask _' How high?_ when the US said _' Jump!'_
|
| It's only in the US and amongst a self-deluding swathe of
| British society that this "relationship" is seen as one
| of equals. The reality is that we're sucking up to the
| playground bully because we've seen what he does to the
| kids who won't hand over their dinner money. And we're
| trying to kid ourselves we're best buddies.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > UK just immediately follows whatever the US does, even
| if it is economically suicidal.
|
| What is a good example?
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >> UK just immediately follows whatever the US does, even
| if it is economically suicidal. >>What is a
| good example?
|
| Well, the best example is playing out in Eastern Europe
| at the minute.
|
| But there are plenty of others, including needlessly
| antagonising China and sabotaging our previously
| beneficial economic relations, because the US is spoiling
| for a fight with China. Ergo UK must do likewise.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > endless foreign policy decisions where the UK just
| immediately follows whatever the US does
|
| That more the result of stupidity and Napoleon syndrome
| than some magic hold the US has over the UK. The UK, in
| particular our government, still wants to believe we're a
| geopolitically important country capable of projecting
| power and influencing the world. While there's some small
| element of truth in that belief, our actual relevance on
| the world stage is far small than our government wishes
| it was, and is only getting smaller thanks to wonderful
| incompetence of past 10 years of government.
| YourDadVPN wrote:
| I don't think it's as bad as all that, but it's certainly
| heading that waym
| wunderland wrote:
| I do. It's harsh but accurate in my opinion.
| jasfi wrote:
| I had money disappear out of my NatWest account several years
| ago, when I lived in the UK. No transaction was present to
| show where it went. Nobody at the bank would speak to me
| about it, not to this day. I'm talking making it obvious that
| they didn't want to speak to me about it. That was one of
| many incidents where I was blatantly ripped off. Nobody there
| cared one bit.
|
| EDIT: thanks for all the replies! That means something to me,
| I'll see if I can't get this sorted out. It's just weird that
| even the NatWest Twitter customer support account ignores my
| DMs.
| YourDadVPN wrote:
| That's... quite spooky, do you have any theories as to what
| happened? I hope you at least changed all your security
| info.
| jasfi wrote:
| I think this is related to corruption - of which I am a
| target, which started in South Africa (where I'm
| originally from and have now moved back to), which seemed
| to spread to the UK when I moved there. I can't get
| anything in black and white either.
| turkeywelder wrote:
| Raise it with the ombudsman!
| jasfi wrote:
| I'll try again. Everything I've done seemed like a dead-
| end, but I'll try.
| euoia wrote:
| I'm curious how the appeared on your statement. Did a
| transaction of money coming into your account disappear?
| jasfi wrote:
| There was no transaction. It looked like the money had
| never been there.
| euoia wrote:
| I don't understand. Doesn't your balance equal the sum of
| your transactions on your statement? I understand there
| is no outgoing transaction, but unless some "money in"
| lines were removed then how does it add up?
| smartscience wrote:
| I've heard this can happen where money laundering is
| suspected. Apparently the banks aren't allowed to tip off
| the account owner that they're being investigated, with the
| result that the account owner's subsequent interactions
| with the bank become kafkaesque.
| valdiorn wrote:
| AML rules are sadly very Kafkaesque. Having worked in
| finance for over a decade I've done enough compliance
| training to know that, yes, if money laundering is
| suspected you literally are not allowed to help the
| customer. You're not even allowed to tell them WHY you're
| unable to help. Failing to do so can make you, personally
| (the worker), criminally liable.
|
| Telling the client "I'm sorry, your account is frozen
| pending an investigation" might land you in jail. You
| literally MUST lie to them and feed them a bunch of
| bullshit.
|
| It's a shitty system, but interestingly, one that was
| developed by the EU, not specifically the UK.
|
| Your options are; wait until some nameless government
| agency realises they've made a mistake, and releases your
| funds, or start a lawsuit and spend lots of time and
| money fighting to get your money back.
| ISL wrote:
| If a bank takes your money and won't tell you why, that
| lawsuit should be to get your money back and treble
| damages. As long as you can get in front of a jury, the
| jury will be very sympathetic....
| jasfi wrote:
| Hopefully that's what happened, then perhaps there's a
| small chance I can find out what did happen and maybe
| even see that money again. But it was more than 10 years
| ago, I think.
| politician wrote:
| This is how it works in the US as well.
| nhchris wrote:
| Punishment as part of a secret investigation, that you're
| not notified of or have a chance to defend yourself
| against in court, sounds rather _undemocratic_ *.
|
| *This word is sadly misused to mean "any unjust system of
| government". E.g. it is perfectly possible to have a
| constitutional monarchy, the antithesis of democracy,
| that respects the right to a fair trial and to face your
| accuser. Conversely, things people vote for are routinely
| dismissed as "undemocratic" - in that case, it gets
| called "populism". As far as I can tell, the words, as
| (ab)used, have nothing to do with the method of
| government, and everything to do with the outcome.
| jasfi wrote:
| I've seen a lot of undemocratic actions by democratic
| countries. Democracies can be of a very weak form, that
| name alone is not enough.
| kneebonian wrote:
| What are you talking about the Democratic People's
| Republic of Korea is doubleplus good Korea.
| irusensei wrote:
| > It's a shitty system, but interestingly, one that was
| developed by the EU, not specifically the UK
|
| As much as, for the dismay of the average hacker news
| Joe, don't pray to the holy EU altar, I suspect sure
| those guidelines were sketched by FATF, an American
| institution at heart, ironically where such measures are
| not applied.
|
| The AML framework is xenophobic and goes against things
| we consider basic rights like being innocent until proven
| guilty. However, it is not only ignored but applauded by
| the most progressive crowds that think its defending
| their countries from barbaric
| $place_from_the_east_or_south.
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >It's a shitty system, but interestingly, one that was
| developed by the EU...
|
| Ahem. As with most of these things. AML and KYC actually
| originated in the US. And [as ever] was then adopted by
| other countries. The present setup was a G7 creation. Not
| specifically EU. I'll let my learned colleague ChatGPT
| elaborate:
|
| _The first country to propose anti-money laundering
| (AML) rules is difficult to pinpoint with certainty as
| different countries developed their AML laws at different
| times and for different reasons. However, one of the
| earliest examples of an AML law is the U.S. Bank Secrecy
| Act (BSA) of 1970..._
|
| _The "Know Your Customer" (KYC) rules originated in the
| United States in the 1970s, along with the Bank Secrecy
| Act (BSA) of 1970...._
|
| _Other countries began developing their own AML laws in
| the 1980s and 1990s, with the Financial Action Task Force
| (FATF) established in 1989 to coordinate international
| efforts to combat money laundering..._
|
| _The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is the global
| standard-setting body for anti-money laundering and
| counter-terrorist financing (CFT) policies. It was
| established in 1989 by the G7 countries, and its
| recommendations have been widely adopted by countries
| around the world...._
| ablob wrote:
| Did you check if your colleague wrote truthfully?
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| My colleague wouldn't lie to me. We're terrific chums.
| jasfi wrote:
| Well it's possible someone tried to make me look
| suspicious. But I think it's very unfair and even
| deceitful not to tell me anything at all.
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| >Well it's possible someone tried to make me look
| suspicious.
|
| You don't need to have done anything suspicious. I've
| been a victim of this myself. Several years ago, I had a
| Shares ISA [0] account, into which I invested a couple of
| hundred PSPSPS every month out of my wages.
|
| After about 5 years I was out of work and needed to cash
| it in. But, when I tried to withdraw the money, I got hit
| with an "Unexplained Wealth Order" [or somesuch term],
| telling me that under AML I needed to fill in some
| disgustingly intrusive form explaining where I'd got this
| sum of money from [it was only a few thousand PSPSPS, not
| a fortune]. And, as I said, this was from the savings
| company which already knew exactly where the money had
| come from. As they'd watched it build up in small amounts
| over the previous 5 years or so.
|
| I refused to comply with their AML/KYC. It then took me
| at least a few months and several letters, threatening
| them with legal action before they finally agreed to just
| close my account and return my money.
|
| I also closed my eBay account when they started asking
| for people to upload scans of their passports to verify
| their identity.
|
| These companies can fuck right off, as far as I'm
| concerned. AML/KYC is disgusting and I just wish more
| people would make a stand and refuse to comply with it.
|
| [0] https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/savings/investing/s
| tocks-a...
| [deleted]
| jasfi wrote:
| It was a long time ago, but I think I remember something
| about an Unexplained Wealth Order. It could be that my
| explanation wasn't good enough for them. I need to chase
| this up again.
|
| I worked as a consultant (permanent position) and had
| expenses that frequently needed to be refunded by the
| company. Perhaps they thought this was money laundering??
| [deleted]
| jjulius wrote:
| I mean, this isn't a UK-specific problem at all. PayPal in
| the US will happily do the same thing to you.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| PayPal isn't a bank. Banks are held to higher standards
| regarding customer funds.
| andrewaylett wrote:
| In Europe, PayPal _is_ a bank:
| https://edesk.apps.cssf.lu/search-
| entities/entite/details/70...
| idlewords wrote:
| Really more of a heckhole; let's be honest here.
| devmunchies wrote:
| > Signal says it'll shut down in UK
|
| > At least Northern Ireland and Scotland will be spared. The Home
| Office legislative proposals, if adopted, will apply only to
| England and Wales
|
| So... will signal shut down in the UK or just England/Wales?
| stereoradonc wrote:
| I'll shed a tear
| lrvick wrote:
| If Signal was not centralized, it could not be forced to comply
| with anything, and also could not be withdrawn from any country.
|
| Centralization remains incompatible with privacy and censorship
| resistance.
| mgbmtl wrote:
| Sure, but the main problem here is Apple/Google stores. Remove
| it there, and 99% of their users disappear.
|
| Governments don't care much about Tor, for example, because
| they have very little leverage (and their law enforcement use
| it, but members of parliament also use Signal but can't admit
| it openly).
| jakear wrote:
| Have we forgotten about the internet? It wouldn't be
| difficult to make Signal as a PWA, and with iOS 16.4 coming
| all the relevant API's should be present.
|
| As for TOR, I'd wager governments love it. Everyone the world
| over has decided to congregate one one official "secret
| stuff" platform and get this: it's made by the US Government.
|
| And by all accounts the US government is well able to spy on
| it - but won't say how instead preferring to bring up cases
| by parallel construction^. It's perfect. I don't know what
| more a government could want.
|
| ^ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/08/349016/a-dark-
| we...
| jayzalowitz wrote:
| Its open source except for anti spam for obvious reasons, go
| make your own spam filled signal...
| idlewords wrote:
| That's ridiculous. If Signal weren't centralized, it would long
| ago have split into four thousand mutually incompatible
| OpenSignal apps, all of which would be just as easy to ban in
| the UK app store.
| sschueller wrote:
| Like IRC /s
|
| Only because something is decentralized doesn't mean it will
| scatter into an incompatible mess.
| t09i209ba893 wrote:
| Matrix hasn't split into thousands of mutually incompatible
| apps. I speculate that having a complete, "flagship" client
| helps prevent this.
| tptacek wrote:
| The story of the Matrix project is about the closest thing
| you could find to a total vindication of Moxie's original
| take about federation. Federation delayed the convergence
| of Matrix to E2E-by-default by (as I recall?+) years, and
| will drastically complicate their response to the
| Nebuchadnezzar results, which were themselves in part a
| complication of decentralization and loose coupling.
|
| You can coherently argue that decentralization is an
| important, or even necessary, goal for private
| communications. I won't agree, but I can productively hear
| that argument out. But I don't think you can cite Matrix as
| the counter to Moxie's point; with respect to Matrix, the
| more appropriate assessment of Moxie's federation argument
| might be "prophetic".
|
| I will never sound like it, but I'm in Matrix's corner. I
| see clearly where they fit into the ecosystem. The world
| where Matrix replaces Discourse, Slack, IRC, and Telegram
| is a better world.
|
| I do not see Matrix replacing Signal, or whatever post-
| Signal project is carrying forward their ideals 20 years
| from now.
|
| + _A Matrix project person will be sure to correct me on
| this, and I call it out in part to be candid that I 'm not
| certain about the specific duration._
| simfree wrote:
| Signal without SMS support is a poorer performing version
| of Element to me. There is little practical difference
| between Signal and most other popular messaging apps that
| implements end to end encryption.
|
| Compare Element and Signal Desktop startup times, Element
| is nearly instantaneous, while Signal takes significant
| time to even open. Both are using the same software stack
| on desktop, Electron with SQLite.
| Arathorn wrote:
| ironically, i agree with much with this: Matrix began in
| May 2014; we started E2EE in Feb 2015 and turned it on by
| default in May 2020. Centralised systems are _way_
| simpler and easier to reason about and present a smaller
| attack surface.
|
| Is decentralisation worth it despite that? In my opinion,
| categorically yes. Just as the internet is better than a
| corporate WAN, and the internet should live forever,
| unlike the likes of AOL.
|
| https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-
| freedom was my attempt to articulate this.
| tptacek wrote:
| I would hope there's not much irony here at all. Signal
| has different priorities than Matrix. I'm sure the Signal
| project would like to think it can eventually grow to
| replace Slack, and I don't see that happening either.
| lampshades wrote:
| Maybe that's because Matrix sucks for a usability
| perspective and nobody cares to split it.
| sjy wrote:
| > The legislation contains what critics have called "a spy
| clause." It requires companies to remove child sexual
| exploitation and abuse (CSEA) material or terrorist content from
| online platforms "whether communicated publicly or privately." As
| applied to encrypted messaging, that means either encryption must
| be removed to allow content scanning or scanning must occur prior
| to encryption.
|
| This is not accurate. The "spy clause" (section 110) allows Ofcom
| to issue notices, if it is "necessary and proportionate" to do
| so, which could have that effect. In deciding what is "necessary
| and proportionate" Ofcom is specifically required to consider
| things like "the kind of service it is," "the extent to which the
| use of the specified technology would or might result in
| interference with users' right to freedom of expression" and
| "whether the use of any less intrusive measures than the
| specified technology would be likely to achieve a significant
| reduction in the amount of relevant content" (section 112). This
| decision can be legally challenged.
|
| The difference is important. Every country has a system that
| allows police to legally break into your home and search it - if
| a legal authority decides that it is necessary and appropriate.
| Whether such powers are abused depends not only on the text of
| the law, which is often as vague and open to interpretation as
| the Fourth Amendment, but also on the prevailing culture of the
| government and its judicial and law enforcement bodies. That's
| why Signal's president acknowledges that they are responding to a
| hypothetical.
|
| While she won't speculate on the probabilities, there are
| precedents which inform us about the probability that a
| democratic government would use these powers to break a popular
| secure messaging system over the reasoned objection of its users
| and developers. This law could achieve its goal of increasing
| public control over Big Tech's content moderation policies
| without being used in that perverse way. Such perverse outcomes
| have not yet arisen under the controversial Australian laws which
| generated similar comments from Signal [1] and HN users [2] in
| 2018.
|
| [1]: https://signal.org/blog/setback-in-the-outback/
|
| [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18636076
| wunderland wrote:
| How would this work in practice? Would you need a proxy or non-UK
| VPN to access the Signal servers?
| PTcartelsLOL wrote:
| I think you can use it from the UK, but it will not show up in
| the app stores in the UK
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Probably yeah. Unless they wish to block entire IP ranges
| from their servers.
|
| I wonder if this will finally make third-party app stores
| mainstream. On the other hand, signal isn't on F-droid either
| as it was moxie's pet peeve. But now that he's gone perhaps
| they'll reconsider in light of this.
| b3nji wrote:
| But how? Am I being daft, how can they remove themselves from the
| U.K.?
|
| What's going to stop people in the U.K. from using the service?
| If this is possible, why is this service a good thing in the
| first place?
|
| Surely, we need a decentralized system free from government
| bullshit that runs regardless? Free from corporate control too?
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Stop giving them incentives!
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| Signal reportedly has some popularity among UK
| politicians[1,2], if I understand correctly what you're
| complaining about.
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/17/tories-
| swit... or
| https://www.theregister.com/2019/12/20/uk_conservatives_brex...
| (same story)
|
| [2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-and-
| others-...
| hkt wrote:
| Ah, politicians, consultancies, spooks, and civil servants all
| failing to understand cryptography. How novel.
|
| It really is a shame that we do this. It is symptomatic of an
| inordinate amount of ineptitude in our ruling class, and goes
| back centuries. It is strange to see that it is mostly the
| English speaking world that suffers from this, too. Why are we so
| different?
| hummus_bae wrote:
| [dead]
| idlewords wrote:
| Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't
| understand the technology.
| jesprenj wrote:
| They aren't banning cryptography. This only applies to private
| entities hosting conversations for other persons. This wouldn't
| apply to private individuals hosting their own conversation
| servers, let's say using encrypted XMPP.
| gorbypark wrote:
| Are you going to have a conversation with yourself? I suppose
| XMPP is federated, but would this ban a group of friends
| using the same XMPP server that's administered by one person?
| What about services that aren't federated? It would
| essentially criminalize running an instance of anything and
| sharing it with friends/family/others.
| andai wrote:
| While that is some comfort, it would eliminate the vast
| majority of encrypted communications as they exist today, no?
| teilo wrote:
| And you think it will stay that way? It won't. This is just
| the start. Next, they will ban private servers and raid those
| who do not comply.
| hkt wrote:
| That's a huge number of people who can't access secure
| messaging anymore. Journalists can't run such services, and
| as soon as somebody does it for them they're a service
| provider who falls under the regulations.
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| "They aren't banning cryptography. They're just banning
| cryptography for regular people."
|
| FTFY ;-)
| YourDadVPN wrote:
| > It is strange to see that it is mostly the English speaking
| world that suffers from this, too.
|
| Is it? I would say the Anglosphere does relatively well, and
| that's not a compliment.
| hkt wrote:
| Germany seems to be the gold standard. A very healthy respect
| for decentralisation and privacy that we lack. Much of Europe
| is similar, leaving aside the more autocratic countries.
| Switzerland is also very good AIUI.
|
| What's a real pity is how there are so few open source
| alternatives with strong crypro and decent usability. Even
| when they do exist, marketing never happens so adoption
| sucks. Advocacy orgs have some things to answer for here too.
| Signal is probably an example of how to gain a foothold that
| ought to be studied.
|
| Edit: also, mass adoption of ipv6 would help genuine p2p IM
| etc enormously. I have ipv6 on mobile but not domestic
| broadband now, so maybe the time is coming.
| antisocialist wrote:
| Of course they will, because their security and privacy features
| would be misleading and rendered useless by this legislation.
| They have no choice.
|
| Resident crypto-haters can hate coin-based privacy networks all
| they want, but fully decentralized encrypted messaging will
| _remain_ the only way to get E2EE private messaging and chat in
| free speech hellholes such as Iran, China, the UK, and the EU.
|
| Those organizations have no entity that does business anywhere
| (including the UK), and doesn't need anyone's permit to make its
| endpoints accessible to anyone.
| anonymousab wrote:
| Nothing about cryptocurrencies are needed for making a
| decentralized encrypted messager.
|
| That Signal has public, known contributors and servers is a
| choice by their developers, not something necessitated by the
| fact that they didn't host it on ethereum or whatever.
| tempodox wrote:
| > ...and doesn't need anyone's permit to make its endpoints
| accessible to anyone.
|
| Until exactly that is being made illegal.
| largepeepee wrote:
| "If you get this wrong, you'll end up criminalizing a lot of
| people whose only offense is using or selling a phone that is too
| abnormal for the Government's official tastes," she writes.
| "Either you're an obedient consumer who uses what Samsung,
| Google, Apple, and Meta have to offer, or you're a criminal. Good
| luck developing your moribund tech industry with that attitude."
|
| Great that more people are speaking out against govt overreach.
| orangepanda wrote:
| Many of those lawmakers want to regress back to the 18th
| century, replacing modern banking with cholera. Not having a
| tech industry isn't a threat to them, it's the goal
| whitemary wrote:
| Sounds like capitalist "overreach" if anything.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Get it wrong? That's the objective, not an error!
| skrebbel wrote:
| Theres just as many politicians who fall for the "save the
| children" pitch as there is politicians who really truly want
| a surveillance state. It pays to keep repeating this. There's
| no conspiracy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-25 23:01 UTC)