this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
265 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

60059 readers
2926 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
265
UK's "Online Safety Bill" should be renamed the "Online Exposure Bill (www.wired.com)
submitted 1 year ago by woshang to c/technology
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I believe the "Online Safety Bill" should be renamed the "Online Exposure Bill," and here's why:

  1. Age verification likely involves estimating age based on biometric data – essentially, using an algorithm to scan a photo or video of the user." making our identity transparent in the digital world.

  2. "Client-side scanning, where a phone or other device would scan the content of a message before it’s encrypted and flag or block violating material." This effectively renders E2EE (End-to-End Encryption) useless!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apologies, I incorrectly believed we were discussing Canada for some reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don’t need to apologise. The comment OP asked how Canada was doing, then the next commenter gave their opinion on the UK, not Canada.

It confused me as I read through the comment chain, as I was also expecting a comment on Canada (not UK).

It’s probably worth mentioning that the UK has a parliamentary system, not a presidential system. So the people elect a party, and the party leader then becomes prime minister (but the party can decide amongst itself who the next party leader should be, and this is usually done by a vote among party members).

Now there are legitimate criticisms of whether this is a democratic process, but the person who you replied to seemed to suggest that the recent change of prime ministers without elections was unusual and evidence of the UK “plummeting”. This user is entitled to his/her opinion, of course, but I just wanted to point out that this is actually constitutional and common practice in the UK.

“Far from being unusual, it’s actually the norm for Prime Ministers to enter office outside of a general election.”

Source: https://fullfact.org/news/unelected-prime-ministers-common-or-not/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The comment at the time I replied said "how are things over there", without the "in canada" bit.

I assumed that because he mentioned that he became a canadian citizen, that he was currently living in canada, and because the post is about a UK policy, that wanted to know more of what it was like in the UK currently in case he ever wanted to come back.

And while I am aware that we live in a parliamentary system, I find calling it a democracy, like most tend to do, is pretty ridiculous if we only get to participate in it for a few minutes every five years, and afterwards, whoever wins isn't held to account when they end up failing in their duty to represent the people who elect them.