UK government wants easy access to your private communications.

[Pickman's model]

It's not going to happen is it? Sunak isn't going to force Apple to remove iMessage, and Facebook to remove Whatsapp from the UK just prior to a general election.

Yes they'll never kettle this number of people on Whitehall

 

[not-bono-ever]

Do these politicians actually understand how tech like this works?

 

[Pickman's model]

Do these politicians actually understand how tech like this works?

No

 

[Pickman's model]

It's not going to happen is it? Sunak isn't going to force Apple to remove iMessage, and Facebook to remove Whatsapp from the UK just prior to a general election.

Look at how far it has progressed

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

You don't have a fucking clue do you

 

[savoloysam]

It's not going to happen is it? Sunak isn't going to force Apple to remove iMessage, and Facebook to remove Whatsapp from the UK just prior to a general election.

No Apple and WhatsApp have said that they will refuse to cooperate and if they are forced to they will remove their messenger services from the UK market.

Their POV being once an official backdoor is opened its wide open to hackers and that will be seriously brand damaging to them.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Do these politicians actually understand how tech like this works?

Fuck no

 

[nogojones]

I'm intrigued. Do you snort it or inject?

Plugged is the Urban way

 

[Sasaferrato]

This Bill was introduced by Labour. I wrote to Charles Clarke, the then Home Secretary, suggesting that this very thing would happen. He replied, and assured that me it wouldn't happen.

 

[alex_]

How will that work for VPN providers domiciled in a data haven (e.g. Panama)?

Blocking on mainstream ISPs, like they already do with copyright material

 

[platinumsage]

Look at how far it has progressed

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

You don't have a fucking clue do you

Oh fuck off yourself, there's plenty of scope for the part I mentioned to be kiboshed.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh fuck off yourself, there's plenty of scope for the part I mentioned to be kiboshed.

Has an amendment been submitted to remove the part you find objectionable? It's been through 1st 2nd and 3rd readings in the commons, 1st and 2nd readings in the Lords not to mention the committee and report stages in both houses, it's only got 3rd reading in the Lords and consideration of amendments to go before the king approves it. So many opportunities to do away with the clauses covering this point have come and gone. And now you're suggesting things might come down to charles refusing the royal assent. You haven't got a fucking clue

 

[platinumsage]

it's only got 3rd reading in the Lords and consideration of amendments to go

Read your own post and stop wittering on about the king.

 

[Pickman's model]

Read your own post and stop wittering on about the king.

Not a fucking clue. You clueless cockwomble

 

[platinumsage]

Not a fucking clue. You clueless cockwomble

Even if the bill is not amended, there's plenty of other ways for Sunak to stop the relevant measures, and avoid an iMesage and Whatsapp catastrophe, as you presumably already have a big clue about.

For example he could stop his ministers from using the powers in the bill to enact the relevant measures.

 

[Karl Masks]

Fucking sinister shit!

Unless your Boris in which case it remains an unsolvable mystery

 

[Pickman's model]

Even if the bill is not amended, there's plenty of other ways for Sunak to stop the relevant measures, and avoid an iMesage and Whatsapp catastrophe, as you presumably already have a big clue about.

For example he could stop his ministers from using the powers in the bill to enact the relevant measures.

The consideration of amendments follows directly on the third reading and consists of looking at amendments emanating from the commons. I ask again - has there been an amendment removing the clauses you object to? This bollocks about sunak maybe saying 'don't use the bill we've spent so much time passing', fucking piffle. You should be embarrassed

 

[platinumsage]

The consideration of amendments follows directly on the third reading and consists of looking at amendments emanating from the commons. I ask again - has there been an amendment removing the clauses you object to? This bollocks about sunak maybe saying 'don't use the bill we've spent so much time passing', fucking piffle. You should be embarrassed

The third reading is scheduled for September, plenty of time for Lord's amendments to be put forward.

I'm not sure why the time spent passing should make a difference to anything - the government will quite happily see over the sunk cost fallacy if it makes attractive politics. They're demonstrating they really want to stop kiddie porn, which won't go down badly with voters, neither will pausing or altering a particular aspect of that at the last minute in order to keep everyone happy on their smartphone chitchats.

 

[PR1Berske]

With so much Government business seemingly conducted over WhatsApp I'm baffled that things have progressed this far tbh

 

[Ming]

I always assume they can already access everything if they want.

I remember PK posting about this 20 years ago. His expression was 'be as nervous as a longtail cat in a room full of rocking chairs' with regards to the internet and electronic communication.

Very true.

I just assume all electronic communication is compromised or ends up on a fucking big hardrive somewhere (including PGP and TOR).

 

[Pickman's model]

The third reading is scheduled for September, plenty of time for Lord's amendments to be put forward.

I'm not sure why the time spent passing should make a difference to anything - the government will quite happily see over the sunk cost fallacy if it makes attractive politics. They're demonstrating they really want to stop kiddie porn, which won't go down badly with voters, neither will pausing or altering a particular aspect of that at the last minute in order to keep everyone happy on their smartphone chitchats.

Amendments can be made at lords' third readings providing that the matter hasn't been considered in the committee or report stages. Being as the bill has been considered at both committee and report stages in both houses of Parliament it's really unlikely that the lords is going to revisit the matter.

 

[8ball]

This Bill was introduced by Labour. I wrote to Charles Clarke, the then Home Secretary, suggesting that this very thing would happen. He replied, and assured that me it wouldn't happen.

The bill was introduced on 17th March 2022.

Quick calibration check: who is Prime Minister in your timeline?

 

[two sheds]

Disraeli wasn't it?

 

[8ball]

With so much Government business seemingly conducted over WhatsApp I'm baffled that things have progressed this far tbh

There will of course be exemptions.

 

[two sheds]

I've always assumed (not sure how true it is though) that phone lines are monitored for obvious keywords. Presumably at some point they'll have systems that can monitor everyone's communications in real time? Would have thought it's impossible but I still can't get my head round how search engines work so well.

 

[8ball]

Disraeli wasn't it?

Tbf there was some very similar and equally idiotic bill in the works back then.

(I mean the Blair years - not Disraeli)

 

[SpookyFrank]

Do these politicians actually understand how tech like this works?

No

 

[weltweit]

I remember a quote that was - no UK government will permit the public a communications medium which they could not eavesdrop upon.

We had a couple for a little while, now the legislation / government is catching up.

 

[Sasaferrato]

The bill was introduced on 17th March 2022.

Quick calibration check: who is Prime Minister in your timeline?

The Regulatory Powers bill, which this is the child of, came in under Labour. Labour are not libertarian, as the recent purge of Councillors shows.

 

[ohmyliver]

Do these politicians actually understand how tech like this works?

no,

on a side note, A few years ago I was once sent a job spec for a government tech advisor, needed advanced knowledge of 4 coding languages, phd in computer science, ability to present complex tech to non technical stakeholders (i.e. politicians and senior civil servants), etc etc. Not quite sure why I was sent the job spec as I wasn't remotely qualified. The pay was 40k, which would be absurdly low for that skillset, you'd get at the very least double that in the private sector easily.

I feel that these things might be related

 

[redcogs]

There seems to be a lot of focus upon the role parliamentary procedure above - its almost as though parliament might have a remotely decisive role in all this spy technology. Parliament just rubber stamps what big business juggernaughts have already achieved, ie a frightening degree of surveilence and loss of privacy, all done for money. if i was interested in rolling back some of this shit i dont think i would rely upon the hise of Lords (or commons) to be remotely helpful. Same old same old.