zlacker

[return to "Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach"]
1. flower+x6[view] [source] 2025-12-18 12:16:41
>>donoho+(OP)
> He warns that developers of apps like Signal and WhatsApp could technically fall within the legal definition of "hostile activity" simply because their technology "make[s] it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor communications.

Sounds like Let's Encrypt would also fall under that.

This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the streets they walk on. I walk on them too. And don't use CP as a catch-all argument to insert backdoors.

Their big problem here is that previously, it was hard to find people with the same opinion as you. If you couldn't find someone in the same village who wanted to start a rebellion, it probably wouldn't happen. Today, someone can post a Telegram group message and make thousands of people rally to a town square. I see the dangers, and I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people. No one wants civil war. That is still not a strong enough reason to call road construction a hostile activity.

I'm back in Sweden after 12 years abroad. Time to read up on which parties are sane and which aren't when it comes to technical infrastructure.

◧◩
2. mosura+R7[view] [source] 2025-12-18 12:27:40
>>flower+x6
> This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the streets they walk on.

That would be against everything european governments stand for.

◧◩◪
3. p0pula+x9[view] [source] 2025-12-18 12:42:07
>>mosura+R7
> That would be against everything european governments stand for.

I really struggle to understand why the hell this is always only applied to european governments? The idea to take 1984 as a book of requirements seems to extend *far* beyond europe.

◧◩◪◨
4. dathin+it[view] [source] 2025-12-18 14:39:03
>>p0pula+x9
yes, and here is a fun fact, most of the push for mass surveillance comes from the European Council, the thing is that literally are "just" the locally elected leaders...

not some vague far away "the EU (personalized)" thing

which also mean you can locally enact pressure on them

furthermore the EU supreme court(s) might have more often hindered mass surveillance laws in member states then the council pushing for them...

and if we speak as of "now", not just the UK, but also the US and probably many other states have far more mass surveillance then the EU has "in general".

so year the whole "EU is at fault of everything" sentiment makes little sense. I guess in some cases it's an excuse for people having given up on politics. But given how often EU decisions are severely presented out of context I guess some degree of anti-EU propaganda is in there, too.

[go to top]