UK government wants easy access to your private communications.

[8ball]

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.

The 2014 Regulatory Powers bill?
I don’t think bills passed by the Australian Government have much purchase here.

Also, no one thinks Labour are libertarian.

 

[SpookyFrank]

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.

So the bill wasn't introduced by your freedom-loving tory pals?

 

[Pickman's model]

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.

I responded above to the ignorant platinumsage's claims. But here there's some peculiar cognitive dissonance at work, as undermining the security of online communication isn't really in the interests of big business juggernauts. The people who are proposing this are remarkably ignorant and stupid - it'll work against their other stated objectives like growing the economy.

I also think you misunderstand the role of parliament. If big business juggernauts have already achieved a frightening level of surveillance (and they had many many years ago, see eg the 2005 book 'the glass consumer') then they were far ahead of the state's ability to regulate before the financial crisis. But why is this happening here, and not in eg France or Sweden or Norway or Spain? Is there something peculiar about capitalism or the legislature in this country? Or does your analysis need a spot of tweaking?

 

[Sasaferrato]

So the bill wasn't introduced by your freedom-loving tory pals?

<Yawn>,

 

[Sasaferrato]

The 2014 Regulatory Powers bill?
I don’t think bills passed by the Australian Government have much purchase here.

Also, no one thinks Labour are libertarian.

This is what I'm referring to.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 - JUSTICE

What is the Act about? What are the ‘Investigatory Powers’ it regulates? The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or ‘RIPA’ as it is commonly known, governs the use of covert surveillance by public bodies. This includes bugs, video surveillance and interceptions of private communications...

justice.org.uk

 

[redcogs]

I responded above to the ignorant platinumsage's claims. But here there's some peculiar cognitive dissonance at work, as undermining the security of online communication isn't really in the interests of big business juggernauts. The people who are proposing this are remarkably ignorant and stupid - it'll work against their other stated objectives like growing the economy.

I also think you misunderstand the role of parliament. If big business juggernauts have already achieved a frightening level of surveillance (and they had many many years ago, see eg the 2005 book 'the glass consumer') then they were far ahead of the state's ability to regulate before the financial crisis. But why is this happening here, and not in eg France or Sweden or Norway or Spain? Is there something peculiar about capitalism or the legislature in this country? Or does your analysis need a spot of tweaking?

 

[Pickman's model]

redcogs not sure why you're quoting me without any comment of your own

 

[redcogs]

Where did i quote you Pickman's model ? i made a very general point that the discussion seemed quite centred upon arcane house of commons stuff. Nor can i lay claim to advancing any analysis, (way beyond my pay grade) other than to restate that i have little faith that parliamentary processes in the UK could or would act to curtail the rampant activities of the private sector. i imagine that we both share the understanding that capitals grip has constantly tightened throughout my (our) lifetime/s, in every area i can think of. i regard this as shameful, and hugely damaging to working class interests. Parliament has stood impotent in the face of the deluge of private ownership ventures in health, education, social transport, basically everywhere we look. And actually parliament has encouraged every free market development that has occurred hasn't it? As i noted, its the same old same old.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Honestly, it seems to be very unlikely to go ahead, regardless of the procedures. Who wants to be the government who disabled Whatsapp and iMessage in the UK? I know they never properly think these things through but Apple and Meta are standing up and saying "HEY LOOK WE WILL ACTUALLY PULL OUT WE HAVE NO CHOICE" (and have given evidence to committees). I think that technically the bill could pass and they wouldn't have to demand that specific operators provide backdoors - perhaps that's their plan.

 

[platinumsage]

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.

Wow you googled it, well done. Now perhaps consider all the amendments at the third reading of the Illegal Migration Bill earlier this month and then reflect on whether the above reflects reality.

 

[Pickman's model]

Wow you googled it, well done. Now perhaps consider all the amendments at the third reading of the Illegal Migration Bill earlier this month and then reflect on whether the above reflects reality.

The illegal migration act.

 

[platinumsage]

The illegal migration act.

The proposed amendments at the third reading were to the bill, before it became an act.

 

[Pickman's model]

The proposed amendments at the third reading were to the bill, before it became an act.

The proposed amendments at the third Lords reading of the act.

 

[platinumsage]

Did you read them and in that light consider what you asserted, or are you just going to try and divert into failed pedantizing?

 

[Pickman's model]

Did you read them and in that light consider what you asserted, or are you just going to try and divert into failed pedantizing?

I'm still waiting for your answer to at least one question

 

[platinumsage]

I'm still waiting for your answer to at least one question

Good for you.

 

[Pickman's model]

Where did i quote you Pickman's model ? i made a very general point that the discussion seemed quite centred upon arcane house of commons stuff. Nor can i lay claim to advancing any analysis, (way beyond my pay grade) other than to restate that i have little faith that parliamentary processes in the UK could or would act to curtail the rampant activities of the private sector. i imagine that we both share the understanding that capitals grip has constantly tightened throughout my (our) lifetime/s, in every area i can think of. i regard this as shameful, and hugely damaging to working class interests. Parliament has stood impotent in the face of the deluge of private ownership ventures in health, education, social transport, basically everywhere we look. And actually parliament has encouraged every free market development that has occurred hasn't it? As i noted, its the same old same old.

You quoted me in post 66.

 

[Pickman's model]

.

 

[redcogs]

Oh i see Pickmans Model. Just checked post 66 which contains nothing from me, its repetition of you reply to me. It was an accident. Heres what happened. i spend most of yesterday at a local Wedding, when i came home i quickly checked the forum and noticed you had responded to my moan (post 60) about unsuitability of parliament as a vehicle for social change. my intention was to reply with a reiteration of what i'd already said. No mischief, no snide shit, nothing like that. i must have screwed up when typing. Apols.

 

[teqniq]

Partial victory here:

Britain Admits Defeat in Controversial Fight to Break Encryption

The UK government has admitted that the technology needed to securely scan encrypted messages sent on Signal and WhatsApp doesn’t exist, weakening its controversial Online Safety Bill.

www.wired.com

 

[platinumsage]

You don't have a fucking clue do you

You haven't got a fucking clue

Not a fucking clue. You clueless cockwomble

This bollocks about sunak maybe saying 'don't use the bill we've spent so much time passing', fucking piffle. You should be embarrassed.

I think you should be embarrassed you massive prickwomble.

I refer you to the second paragraph of my post 44, which it now seems is the means by which the government will achieve what I originally claimed in post 28.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Partial victory here:

Britain Admits Defeat in Controversial Fight to Break Encryption

The UK government has admitted that the technology needed to securely scan encrypted messages sent on Signal and WhatsApp doesn’t exist, weakening its controversial Online Safety Bill.

www.wired.com

How much has this cost so far?

Is this why there’s no new money to stop school buildings collapsing on to our children?

 

[Pickman's model]

I think you should be embarrassed you massive prickwomble.

I refer you to the second paragraph of my post 44, which it now seems is the means by which the government will achieve what I originally claimed in post 28.

Right. There is widely expected to be a new pm after the next election. And you say the current pm signalling his current ministers when the text of the bill hasn't changed is going to prevent the powers being used and so no exodus. It's the right time for you to declare victory clearly even tho the people who know say things aren't out of the woods yet. Like the signal woman quoted in the guardian UK ministers seek to allay WhatsApp and Signal concerns in encryption row

There remains one clueless cunt here and it ain't me

 

[platinumsage]

Right. There is widely expected to be a new pm after the next election. And you say the current pm signalling his current ministers when the text of the bill hasn't changed is going to prevent the powers being used and so no exodus. It's the right time for you to declare victory clearly even tho the people who know say things aren't out of the woods yet. Like the signal woman quoted in the guardian UK ministers seek to allay WhatsApp and Signal concerns in encryption row

There remains one clueless cunt here and it ain't me

My only contention was that Sunak wouldn't allow the relevant encryption measure to be enforced prior to the general election, a notion you called "bollocks" and "fucking piffle", so I don't know what you're wittering on about above.

 

[rubbershoes]

How much has this cost so far?

Is this why there’s no new money to stop school buildings collapsing on to our children?

Having falling down schools is probably to deter brown families from coming here

 

[Pickman's model]

My only contention was that Sunak wouldn't allow the relevant encryption measure to be enforced prior to the general election, a notion you called "bollocks" and "fucking piffle", so I don't know what you're wittering on about above.

No. What you in fact said was "just prior to a general election". Which as things stand we're not - there's very unlikely to be a general election this year and quite possibly not next year either. You're stretching your 28 rather beyond what it may bear.

 

[A380]

Given the quality of most online discourse, I pity the poor AI bot or GCHQ HEOs who will have to wade through all the material if the government do get this through…

 

[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.

Just on case you've forgotten what you said. In any event no one is forcing them to remove anything. But I suppose that's not what you meant either.

 

[PR1Berske]

I'm sure that I've posted this here already, though what's Urban without repetition. Given that we know that government loves using WhatsApp etc, then getting into a fight over its legality always baffled me.

 

[platinumsage]

No. What you in fact said was "just prior to a general election". Which as things stand we're not - there's very unlikely to be a general election this year and quite possibly not next year either. You're stretching your 28 rather beyond what it may bear.

So did you disagree with whatever you thought I meant or not?