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

Technology

60058 readers
3901 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!

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thehatfox 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately this is nothing unusual or new for the UK, an authoritarian streak has long existed in both of the countries major political parties. The Conservatives had already passed the Investigatory Powers Act, AKA the "Snoopers Charter" which introduced a wide range of digital surveillance. The Tories have already had a crack at trying to introduce porn age verification laws. During the New Labour era the Labour Party tried to introduce a new ID scheme involving a sprawling government identity database with never-ending feature creep.

Many in Westminster are ignorant of the technological reality these bills collide with, and much of the UK public are (often wilfully) ignorant of the dangers they pose.

I hope Meta follows through with their threat to pull WhatsApp from the UK market in response the to Online "Safety" Bill. WhatsApp is very popular in the UK, and seeing it and many other online services withdraw from the UK could be the wake up call my country has long needed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't compare new labour to labour. They were far closer to the tories than labour ever has been I think. And blunkett et Al wouldn't have stopped at the id I'd bet.

The two party system we've effectively been left with puts me off mainstream politics. That is I can't get behind enough policies from either party to emphatically want to vote for them. That's before you get to the reality of how much of the manifesto suddenly gets dropped or changed once they gain power.

Having said that. WhatsApp and other E2EE messengers leaving the market is only going to increase hacking/finance crime as people side load untested versions of WhatsApp/signal onto their phones.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Exactly. Online safety my arse.

Putting a backdoor onto people's phones to bypass encryption and forcing them to upload photos of themselves doesn't do shit to keep them safe. If anything it endangers them!

And for what exactly?? Do they not think that criminals will just find other ways to communicate, just like they always have? Are they that desperate to catch the stragglers left behind? This will literally only hurt the common folk just trying to get on with their lives, nobody else, just like every other mass surveillance law.

[–] jpeps 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is something that really bothers me about this law. Are they making maths... illegal? What's stopping me from encrypting a message before sending it in a messaging app manually? And if that's illegal, what if say I just sent something base64 encoded, or with a ceaser cypher for some treasure hunt game, am I now breaking the law too? What about a child talking in code to avoid their parents knowing something? Will that be illegal? It just seems so general.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, none of those things will be illegal because the government are full of idiots and they haven't fought literally any of this through.

The criminals will do what they always have which is to continue to use different services for their criminal activity. As in they already use those services so they'll continue to use those services.

Anyone remotely techie will essentially not be affected by this dumb law other than to be minorly inconvenienced by it, this is only going to expose the technologically illiterate.

If they want a photo of me that's fine, but I'm uploading an AI photo. I bet they don't have checks for that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

And also... How does it stop you from using an open-source, non-spying messaging solution or (if it's done on OS level) an open source, non-spying OS? I consider the mainstream messengers fully compromised already, so nothing changes for them anyway.

[–] dilan 1 points 1 year ago

🥶 🥶 🥶

[–] MindSkipperBro12 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Once again, the UK is turning into a dystopia.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

It’s funny the people that broke encryption want to ban it.

[–] reagansrottencorpse 21 points 1 year ago

They are trying to do similar shit here in USA with KOSA. Absolute ghouls.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Who names these bills though? They could just as well name it "Wont-take-away-more-of-your-privacy-jk bill". Would be a lot more fair for everyone and less likely to mislead if we only refered to such stuff by a neutral and boring unique id.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I don't see Labour repealing this. I think they're both in on it.

[–] Dasnap 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I recently got Canadian citizenship through my dad. How are things in Canada currently? I feel like this country economically and socially is just gonna keep spiralling downwards so I'm curious what my backup is like.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not spiralling downwards over here... plummeting.

Hell, we didn't even get to vote for our last two leaders, both of whom did more damage individually than Thatcher.

As for the alternative when we do get a chance to vote, well they've abandoned just about every principle and policy they had now that victory is practically garaunteed, so they've effectively become diet tories.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Hell, we didn’t even get to vote for our last two leaders

Please explain this false statement.

Edit: I am silly and thought that statement was about Canada. I feel shame.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think he’s correctly referring to sunak and truss. Neither were voted in by the public.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

My mistake. I (for whatever reason) thought we were discussing Canada.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you receive an election ballot for either Sunak or Truss? 'Cause I didn't.

[–] [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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Honestly Canada is on roughly the same trajectory as the UK it seems

[–] pret2xyz 4 points 1 year ago

What concerns me most is that biometric data is permanent and cannot be changed. If we share it with the digital world, it could lead to lifelong privacy risks. And I believe that the risks and threats to privacy brought by the UK's Online Safety Bill far outweigh the protection it can provide us with.

I don't know how the government plans to enforce the Bill, but as far as I know, some decentralized encrypted messaging apps are unstoppable, because every user who using the app jointly creates the social network that avoids a single point of failure.