[HN Gopher] Surveillance-by-Design in Proposed Amendments to the...
___________________________________________________________________
Surveillance-by-Design in Proposed Amendments to the UK
Investigatory Powers Act
Author : DyslexicAtheist
Score : 103 points
Date : 2024-01-19 17:23 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lawfaremedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lawfaremedia.org)
| FerretFred wrote:
| > There is a bill moving rapidly through the U.K. Parliament that
| poses a significant threat to data security and privacy in the
| U.K. and beyond. It is ill considered and should be amended
| substantially before it moves forward. The bill is flawed in
| several respects
|
| UK citizen (person of interest?) here.. sadly, this summarises
| what passes for the New Normal here in Britain. Contentious bills
| are always "rushed", and will only be considered by the people it
| will ultimately affect. These bills are always flawed in some
| way, but somehow, the Oppositin never seems to oppose. I'm not
| surprised.
| hkt wrote:
| Unfortunately Labour (with the exception of when they had
| Corbyn in charge) are habitually authoritarian. The mark of a
| party of lawyers, perhaps. So, no real opposition.
| ben_w wrote:
| The original Investigatory Powers Act and Brexit were the two
| reasons I left the UK; the latter hit me harder than I expected
| even by the immediate aftermath of the poll results, but the
| former was so obviously broken even at the time that I'm
| surprised the UK even has a tech sector any more... though I
| suppose, like GDPR, everyone who is being forced to comply is
| trying to do the least effort version of compliance, and the
| inherent secrecy is combining with cluelessness about who has
| exactly what capability to make "do very little" a much easier
| path than I was expecting.
|
| I went to actual Portcullis House to talk to my local MP in
| person about the IP Bill and try to convince her to at least
| limit the worse parts. Nada.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| It would be good to hear what was said, if you don't mind
| sharing.
| stranded22 wrote:
| It doesn't matter what the opposition does, Conservatives have
| a massive majority.
|
| This explains why the distraction is going on - just like last
| time when they got the last bill through.
|
| I hate them with all my heart - not very HN of me, I know.
| nerdawson wrote:
| Labour are on course to win a landslide of their own in the
| election expected to be held this year.
|
| Expect more of the same regardless of which party are in
| power.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| IMHO in order to stop an oppression, people need to
| withdraw there support of said system by organizing
| directly and withdrawing from party politics because party
| systems create polar opposites that keep the status quo
| going.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Other than ai companies and ai workers no decent engineer or
| company would agree to these changes. The UK government seems
| desperate to alienate everyone.
| dewclin wrote:
| > the U.K. government could use existing powers to require that
| the company meet surveillance capability demands as a condition
| of making a product or feature available.
|
| > If the government's demands are not met, the company may have
| no choice but to abandon the product or feature launch, giving
| the government essentially a veto power on how companies innovate
| and improve their products
|
| Well, that's going to attract tech companies to the UK /s
| user764743 wrote:
| >There's no reason to think that the intentions behind the bill
| are anything but noble.
|
| Who are these ex-cops kidding?
| LispSporks22 wrote:
| I think the UK kinda just needs to build its own "internet" like
| China does. Apps for UK people to get spied and surveilled upon
| and generally "kept in line". Also maybe a courtesy firewall so
| they don't feel completely left out.
| WhackyIdeas wrote:
| I live in the UK. And I agree. May as well.
|
| You can put lipstick on pig. But it's still a pig. Not sure if
| Cameron got that memo, mind you.
| OliveMate wrote:
| The sad thing is that our political class and media used to
| actively ridicule China's Great Firewall, but now when the
| _internet nasty_ of the month pops up they all froth at the
| mouth over controlling what people can see.
| LispSporks22 wrote:
| Is there a name for efforts that are terrible and often defeated,
| but are basically inevitable due to just wearing down its
| opponents over time?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Democracy.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| You can use the same tactics.
| elmomle wrote:
| "War of attrition" is the phrase I hear used most frequently in
| such contexts.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Paired with the gag order that comes with each, this has
| several effects, including that the non-U.K. company can't notify
| its home government of the demand, even one that violates the law
| of the home government, preventing any sort of diplomatic
| assistance.
|
| What is wrong with the British government, that they even _think_
| they get to order foreign companies to break the laws of their
| home countries?
| simmerup wrote:
| Well they can always just not sell to the UK if it's such a
| problem.
| ben_w wrote:
| They may well just not operate in the UK, but it remains to
| be seen if anyone will speak openly about being given an
| order they're not supposed to reveal the existence of, even
| in cases where that order is to break a law passed by their
| own government without telling their own government.
| pc86 wrote:
| Whether or not that is a reasonable response is irrelevant to
| the fact that the law is, on its face, idiotic. How else
| would you frame requiring someone not bound by your laws to
| break the laws of their own country?
| trinsic2 wrote:
| We need to hit every company with a demand not to do business
| in the UK because of this, just like we did with SOPA. IF
| they government isn't going to be accountable then we have
| nothing left by to hold the companies accountable ourselves.
| I'll admit, this problem is so pervasive that literally every
| business we use in our society could potentially be a culprit
| :(
| WhackyIdeas wrote:
| This essentially means that companies will be able to lie about
| certain features they are giving users, such as being able to
| delete data or data being encrypted and because of the gag order
| they will know that they wouldn't be allowed to tell users
| anyway. So it cleverly allows companies to be able to advertise
| security features whilst protecting them from the law when they
| don't give those features...
|
| Clever. And very sneaky.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I moved here 10 years ago and this country has been in constant
| downward spiral since then. I'm pretty sure I won't be here in
| the next 10 year. It's insane.
| trinsic2 wrote:
| Why is this so suddenly being pushed so strongly by governments.
| Is seems like something kicked at a hornets nest.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-19 23:00 UTC)