zlacker

>>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.

>>flower+x6
> I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people.

they're not doing this to protect people, they're doing this to ensure there cannot be rebellion against unpopular policies. Organization is harder if all communications is monitored.

But this is how gov't get to be kept in check - the risk of "rebellion". If this risk is removed, you get authoritarian states - see north korea.

>>chii+Oq
I think the saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is more apt.

I think what’s happening isn’t some evil plot to quell opposing voices, but more likely the UK government thinking they’re actually passing laws to reduce rioting and online abuse. And the censorship effects are a side effect of these laws.

Some might consider this opinion naive but take this counterpoint: laws require a majority to pass. So if these censorship laws were written to squash opposing voices, then we’d be dealing with a literal conspiracy involving hundreds of people. I don’t believe all politicians are only in it for themselves (though I do believe many are), so you’d expect at least 1 MP to speak out if such a conspiracy existed.

>>hnlmor+CJ1
This. Governments are signatory to a huge number of agreements, and are members of various NGOs. Things start out as being representative of some will of the people, but over time it becomes a millstone around the government's neck if it the arrangement becomes politically difficult at home. And of course, those arrangements often morph to be to the benefit of those in charge.

What happens is that you get arrangements like the EU demanding migration quotas that the populations of various individual countries despise, or an automobile market that gets progressively more expensive as environmental legislation puts ever more pressure on manufacturers. And of course, if you're saving the world, who needs cars anyway? We should all be living Hong Kong style to save the environment, so we need more urban density.