Re: "FRT can result in high data protection risks"
And if this country had any sense, we'd let them
29 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Aug 2023
And the very suggestion that very rich companies who make a fortune out of enabling CSA should actually do something about it, predictably has El Reg and it's army of fanboy freedum fighters frothing at the mouth. Stopping people abusing children? Oh my gosh, what a terrible invasion of privacy!
You muppets seriously need to get your priorities sorted.
Let's make this really simple for you. The internet we all know and love has enabled pond-life from around the planet to put their criminal and abusive practices on steroids. Indeed, something must be done.
The internet giants, Google, Meta and their chums, have armies of engineers and billions to spare to come up with solutions to these problems. Since so far they have declined, preferring to boost their profit margins yet again instead, it has been up to tech dunce legislators to provide the answers. Unless the technocrats come up with a solution, the law makers will prevail.
Ball's in your court, pal. No use shouting about how X, Y and Z wont' work, you need to provide the A, B and C of what will work. Clock's ticking.
I'm on the side of law enforcement. I don't care if some government algorithm or spook looks through my sock drawer if it is part of a general sweep to protect us all. I appreciate that in this age of easy anonymity and global movement that it has become a necessity. It's not a breach of my rights, it's another piece of infrastructure that allows civilised life to proceed, like motorways and schooling.
Another day, another Register article ridiculing law enforcement on the side of the terrorists and the child abusers. If the tech industry is so damn smart in it's opposition to E2EE, where's it's counter proposal to fight the worse people on the planet? Nowhere, which just goes to show it's all about profit and has sod all to do with individual liberty.
Social media platforms will be expected to:
- remove illegal content quickly or prevent it from appearing in the first place, including content promoting self-harm
- prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content
- enforce age limits and age-checking measures
- ensure the risks and dangers posed to children on the largest social media platforms are more transparent, including by publishing risk assessments
- provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they do arise
Well, well, that's who objects to the cagefighters enabling fraud, terrorism and crimes against children. They're bigots, bigots I tell you! And worse than that, they're old!
"Progressives" are never too great on age discrimination when they're pulling at the equality strands.
El Reg readers really don't like people who buck the EFF consensus, do they? The OSB is great news for children, for public safety, for victims of fraud. Not so good for the cagefighters who will have to divert some of the billions they are currently randomly splurging on AI, into some simple measures on scanning messages on the initial hop.
AFAIK Calderdale uses Oracle, but they've built it all themselves inhouse. There's enough talented software developers who love to live and work in the region to make this a realistic solution in the long term. Trying to make SAP manage anything but shop floors is doomed from the start.
Jeezo, why do EFF nuts go all straw man if anyone disagrees with them?
Hullo, infrastructure = pub is the same as infrastructure = vast electronic messaging networks? Aye, right.
So most of the firewalls you've dealt with allow encrypted archives through? That explains a lot of the breach reports on El Reg.
An employer shouldn't read employee's obviously personal emails - for performance reasons, curiosity etc. If however those private emails trip alerts that they may be criminal in nature, the employer commits an offence by not reading them, or passing them to the police to read.
I won't deal with your paranoia as to the motivations behind the bill, you can discuss that with your therapist.
An interesting, though flawed, argument.
Providing a messaging infrastructure is a much deeper involvement than your examples. The core function of messaging is passing information, currently hidden.
Let me put it in a way all tech heads should understand. Firewalls don't let encrypted zips through, because you can't scan them, so you don't know what damage they will do to the network.
The Online Safety Bill is only doing the same thing for socials.
> What will happen is pretty damn clear: UK is one country. The entire world is a much bigger market.
And?
> First of all, please provide proof that "crimebusting" is actually what such a law would accomplish IF it were implementable. Because so far. the track record of all anti-privacy snooping programs as far as preventing crime goes, is ABYSMAL, no matter where in the world they were implemented.
And you would know that how? Because security agencies tell you how they monitor?
> Why? Simple: Because it is technically impossible to prevent encryption. Encryption is math. Math is known. Prevent it on the application layer, and a sufficiently motivated actor will encrypt the message before handing it to the application. And criminals tend to be VERY motivated. "Oh, but what if that was against the law?" ... well, unfortunately, criminals tend to not give a damn about the law, that's pretty much a requirement for being one.
Who is saying encryption per se is bad? What is stupid is allowing all and sundry military grade E2EE for everyday messaging. And if E2EE gets blocked for most purposes, it make criminal evasions more visible.
You may also note that the OSB doesn't outlaw E2EE, it simply says that companies running messaging systems must not let them be used for illegal purposes. The rest is in your head.
If you disagree, please provide track records of successful anti-privacy programs.
> For what? For developing a messenger app where the audience is...the UK? When all competing products have the entire rest of humanity as their user base, minus a few dictatorships? Sorry, but that doesn't exactly sound like a prime example for a good business plan.
You think if the UK is successful in this, it won't open up markets elsewhere?
> As pointed out above, none of these people will be prevented from using encryption by such laws. Because, well...criminals don't care about the law. It's pretty much a requirement for being a criminal.
As I pointed out to you above, take away E2EE for most purposes and the criminal evasions become easier to spot.
Why oh why on a tech site do people seem to fail to grasp that when you put communications on steroids through servers and software, you have a vastly different situation from verbal conversations and letters in the post?
The Post Office does not profit from pushing filth, fraud and terrorism through it's channels, and does not defend the practice. Apple, Google and Meta do.
Once the OSB is in place, responses become available to these evasions, which would now be much more visible amongst the plaintext traffic and the kosher apps. As I said, you need to think through the technical possibilities that come into scope when the legislative landscape changes.
Yeah, right. As far as I can gather, conversations down the pub don't depend on the messaging infrastructure provided by the megacorps, nor do they enable miscreants to find each other across the globe and co-ordinate their nefarious activities, nor do the megacorps make a penny from them. But they do profit immensely from enabling filth, fraud and terrorism, and have obviously conned you into cheerleading for them.