Britain's New Law that could Kill Encryption

[@oliverejcousins2163]

Ironic that they're keen to read ours but Boris' work phone seems unreadable and nobody should even try.

[@Tommysimonsen]

Same here in Denmark, PM Mette`s SMS`s from 2021 is impossible to recover.

[@CarlosGordo97]

I think he picked a really strong password and forgot it. They can't decrypt it.

[@foxyboiiyt3332]

​@@CarlosGordo97This is Bojo we're talking about. His password was probably iloveboobs

[@oliverejcousins2163]

@@CarlosGordo97 That's one of the versions of his story at least.

[@oliverejcousins2163]

@@foxyboiiyt3332 Possibly the Latin translation of boobs.

[@akgzero8141]

very concerned by what the Tory gov considers terrorism considering their crackdown on protests etc

[@gothicgolem2947]

Idk a lot of their crackdowns have been good like stopping people slow marching in the road or locking on

[@Alepfi5599]

@@gothicgolem2947 that's not terrorism

[@gothicgolem2947]

@@Alepfi5599 true that person shame dto be criticising the crackdown

[@poppyrider5541]

This is not a Tory thing. This is a Government thing.

[@richardhands904]

​​@@gothicgolem2947it's okay, if you don't like freedom of speech. As long as you admit it.

[@davidwebb4904]

Who decides whats “terrorist” content? Criticising the government could be defined as being terrorism. Protesting is terrorism. Its a slippery slope…..

[@blablup1214]

You saying that it would be sucide to speak to her because she is as hot as a bomb that is really going to kill at that party I am 100% sure it is a terrorist attack. 🤣

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

Posting their illegal party could be terrorism.

[@wnsjimbo2863]

Your argument is a slippery alope

[@marny3559]

​@@wnsjimbo2863ok fascist

[@0xCAFEF00D]

Why would criticizing a government be defined as terrorism? Do you think ordinary anti-terrorism laws are applied to people who are simply government critics right now? I'm not a fan of laws like this. But your argument is so bad it must be challenged.

[@davidjennings2179]

I hope none of these companies back down. The UK simply isn't a big enough market to be worth compromising security of their users for. I live in the uk and it would suck to lose those...but it would be worse to lose privacy.

[@dbzfanexwarbrady]

yer Uk is insignificant speck in the global market and this could just accelrate its ecenomic crisis and further garantee the dissolution of the UK

[@TheSegert]

A few game companies already backed down. ether going to refuse to sell in the UK. Or if they are UK based. Simply removed chat functions. Lot of game companies are doing that at the moment.

[@james2396]

I really hope this happens too, this is idiotic legislation that just enables mass surveillance

[@dbzfanexwarbrady]

@@TheSegert will be funny when thier are no consoles are sold in the UK

[@RyanShiels]

agreed. I live in the UK too. I hope all these companies pull services. Public backlash would be immense and bill will be scrapped.

[@The0Yapster]

This is the worst possible use of tax-payers money at such times

[@thewhitefalcon8539]

you voted for it

[@grassytramtracks]

​@@thewhitefalcon8539how do you know who they voted for?

[@ljbeats00]

This is honestly a catastrophe, end to end encryption is safety for all of us, Global companies will not accomodate for only the UK, goes to show our power on the global stage.

[@TheSegert]

UK is shown more and more that it is an authoritarian regime. People are already arrested, put in jail. and send to reeducation. By the goverment. Also. Dont forget this is the same regime. That in the 50s betrayed alan turing in the most despicable way.

[@0w784g]

What a joke. Less than 15 years ago no one gave a flying fig about end-end encrpytion in messaging apps. If the US mega corps that run these services pull out of the UK market more to the good I say.

[@thailux6494]

I’m happy it wasn’t the EU proposing this, otherwise the result could have been different…

[@uwbollema]

​​@@thailux6494yeah it even has a name: the brussels effect

[@alanharper23]

The "skilled person" suggestion is hardly an alleviation. The objection is not that the technology notices wouldn't be impartial or carefully considered. It's that they inherently undermine the security of these platforms by requiring them to weaken their encryption. Having an impartial, considered report written by a "skilled person" doesn't change that, so it fails to address the concerns. This isn't like a search warrant for someone's house. A search warrant is targeted at a specific individual and requires authorisation and oversight. Instead, this is like proposing to permanently remove the locks on *everyone's* home and systematically checking everyone's private properties to find a few bad actors or illegal materials. Would it help to catch those bad actors? Absolutely. But it comes at the cost of everyone's security and privacy. By all means, issue notices to platforms to moderate content that is publicly accessible. But *private* communications should remain exactly that.

[@0w784g]

Have people ever had an unfettered right to completely private communications?

[@ACR909]

@@0w784g Yes, it's called article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights.

[@joule400]

and what happens after only little time is that actual criminals find a way to lock their doors and hide their homes anyway, so now we are left with criminals still doing their thing and normal citizens with little to no privacy left

[@angelainamarie9656]

Actually doing that probably wouldn't help catch anybody it would just make a whole lot of innocent people extremely vulnerable and given the Tory government hatred for lgbtq folk I can only imagine what kind of a bloodbath it would be this would be a fucking genocide

[@alice1374]

@@ACR909 Except we apparently want to withdraw everything that has to do with the EU including the European Commission on Human Rights or ECHR. The petition to not leave says they aren't but words spoken by multiple government officials say otherwise. Brexit has caused too much damage. They think Brexit means we want to lose everything to do with the EU and not even have basic human rights

[@parametr]

Love the subtle "98% of our users are out of UK". AKA "mate, you are not important enough to make this type of rules. Sit down and shush"

[@gothicgolem2947]

Lol if we aren’t important enough leave

[@parametr]

@@gothicgolem2947 that's exactly what they are saying. You OK to have UK be left out of the major worldwide messaging systems (used in business as well)? Smart move?

[@nameTBA]

​@@gothicgolem2947Very ironic how tech companies are the ones taking the stand the British people should be taking. You Brits are pathetic.

[@samsniper2000]

@@gothicgolem2947 That is literally what they will do.

[@zurielsss]

It’s like brexit all over again, UK isn’t that important

[@sitrilko]

For once, I stand on the side of the companies - this is the sort of issue where it's better for everyone they leave the British market and have Britain first figure out what it actually wants.

[@The0Yapster]

This is insane :O As a software engineer who occasionally works on cyber-security, I can't Emphasise enough on how disastrous these decisions can be world-wide. edit: typos

[@Srindal4657]

Had to be done eventually

[@BoyeeSmudger]

Emphasise

[@The0Yapster]

@@BoyeeSmudger Thanks, I corrected it. I use 4 languages on daily basis despite the fact that I don't properly master any lol

[@The0Yapster]

@@Srindal4657 No, it doesn't I would compare this to putting a listening device in the pocket of every citizen. Private conversations should remain Private !!! I don't mind scanning public posts. Emails, private messages, private code repositories, private cloud services must remain private !

[@phantomlordmxvi]

There are definitely ways to check it without removing encryption or implementing backdoors. They could implement a client side hashing of pictures and comparing those pictures to a database with illegal material.

[@drharnsaft1005]

If they do pull out of the UK over this, which I hope, we'll see less secure services made for the UK specifically. I wonder how many leaks we'll have with those every year.

[@piddlydiddly]

Unless it's members of parliament who, as per usual, seem exempt from these rules (e.g. Boris not sharing whatsapp messages and getting away with it).

[@YonaSoundcloud]

init, like we don't get enough data breaches as it is

[@olivarionline]

Maybe that's the real reason they wanted out of the EU - to become more authoritarian without having to worry about EU rules and directives.

[@_____alyptic]

And repealing workers minimum rights & standards legislation

[@1987mdr]

finally someone has realised what I've been saying for years

[@bzuidgeest]

And you only just figured that out? The EU creates minimum requirements. The only reason to step out is to lower requirements.

[@olivarionline]

@@bzuidgeest never had to consider it because I'm not British

[@eddiecalderone]

Authoritarian? Most eu countries have ID cards, law enforcement can stop you randomly on the street and ask you to prove your identity, it does not happen in the U.K.

[@icyknightmare4592]

As a non-Brit, I'm rather interested to see what happens when they actually pass this and try to enforce it. Hopefully the economic and political firestorm that results from it will deter similar efforts in larger regions. It's sad that such an impossible demand needs to be demonstrated in the real world on such a scale, but the people that claim or believe E2E encryption can be safely backdoored won't change their minds until this goes catastrophically wrong. And it won't 'kill' encryption, because you can't ban math, it will only criminalize real security, which is as insane as it sounds. People with even moderate technical skills can and will be able to evade or defeat these measures, so it probably won't even seriously impact the 'intended' targets that don't care about legality anyway.

[@SuperJ1109]

As a Brit I’m telling you the street market for a Nokia 3210 is going to sky rocket

[@thewhitefalcon8539]

They don't want it to be safely backdoored.

[@YonaSoundcloud]

@@thewhitefalcon8539 it doesn't matter what 'they' want, because it cannot be done either way

[@redmozzy]

Exactly, ever uk up address will be instant target

[@mrlover4310]

Any bill that Waters down our right is not acceptable.

[@The_Phoenix_Saga]

I don't side with the government in any way when I say this: but if it's something that the government can take from you, they're not rights. Each one of us only has as many rights as each one of us individually are prepared to stand our ground and be prepared to fight for - if people feel the need for government to justify them, or anyone else for that matter; those are privileges and if they're given, they can be just as easily taken away.

[@0w784g]

Every bill curtails someones rights, otherwise they wouldn't be written.

[@sueyourself5413]

@@The_Phoenix_Saga You need a dictionary, oh cowardly sheep.

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

That's literally every bill. Every law is a removal of freedoms. Even just "do not murder" is removing your rights to murder. You need to take a more nuanced view.

[@grassytramtracks]

Don't support this law either, do not get me wrong, but literally every law curtails rights, hell, rights inherently curtail other rights

[@Agamon]

As an eu citizen, should say WhatsApp water down protections merely due to the UK, I’d walk away from the service. I’d say that would go for a huge percentage of users so I can’t see it happening

[@riskinhos]

uk government already monitors whatsapp they can install spyware remotely in your smartphone without any problem or technical difficulty.

[@redmozzy]

It won’t happen as I put in my post for that exact reason, they will leave the uk and vpn use here will go up

[@fraginz]

The UK government be like: how can we be like the government of P.R.China

[@chat4783]

sadly we are heading in this path.

[@DavidCruickshank]

Maybe we should get ahead of the game and and just rename ourselves "the people's republic of Britain."

[@jason38800]

except China is a super global powerhouse who doesnt rely on anybody financially, the uk is a small island of chaos, full of illegal immigrants and debt.

[@user-dg9ti5gq4e]

Feels like every few years a new torry pops up and tries to get rid of encryption.

[@SMGAPR8]

When they need to who and the general public are thinking! I thought that was for God 🙏

[@gregoryfenn1462]

If encryption is weakened via backdoors, then your private messages, internet use, financial transactions and digital contracts are at risk of being corrupted or modified or breached. So that means we won't be able to trust jn the integrity of digital signatures that prove that someone has truly signed a contract or sent a certain message, and it would make paypal/visa/mastercard etc insecure too.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

And any legel work done whether a tech reviewer signing an embargo or taxes and other such important stuff a modern govermnt relies on to fuction...

[@rubberduck3y6]

Exactly, this horrible law threatens to undermine the entire economy at a time when it's on its knees already as no electronic communication will be safe from interception anymore. Companies won't see the UK as a attractive place to do business thanks to the countless data leaks that will occur, criminals will be able to download everyone's financial and personal information to use for scams and extortion etc. The list of harmful effects of the Online Safety Bill is practically endless, but yet there's no way for the public to stop it as both parties support it.

[@chedder9999]

slowing turning into a authoritarian state ....

[@tyranitararmaldo]

Slowly? It's been going pretty quickly lately.

[@DavidCruickshank]

Slowly turning into??!! We're already there, why do you think that Orwell wrote 1984 about the UK.

[@mikeyallen6758]

This is one of the things i hate about our government (and a lot of governments tbh) they put up these "solutions" without realising that they will do more harm than good. Sure they might catch a few bad actors but the rest will simply find another way to communicate without being caught. It happens with drug use, it happened with prohibition and it will happen with this. Meanwhile regular people will be subject to decreased security where hacks and data breaches can significantly harm their lives, not to mention the people outside the UK that will be in worse positions. We need some serious reforms to government processes to stop this kinda stuff from happening, as it seems that every awful decision the government has made has been something completely out of the blue and i know a few tory voters that wouldn't have voted for them if they had known about them in advance.

[@MichaelDeHaven]

Exactly, "bad guys" will just download an app that doesn't have compromised encryption. Meanwhile normal citizens have lost their privacy.

[@KDLessAchievable]

I don't think they're actually trying to help. For a politician, it's not about being effective, it's about being seen to be "taking action". Whether that action actually helps is fairly irrelevant to them, they can still make a speech about how they're "protecting children" to their electorate.

[@Fireberries]

@@MichaelDeHaven And it'll be very easy to do with a jailbroken phone (assuming you couldn't download such an app in the normal way). Can even use VPNs to access foreign versions of social media etc If they ban VPNs, there will be an uptake in TOR users

[@mikeyallen6758]

@@KDLessAchievable i agree, i think its two sides of the same issue. Like im sure there are some who do want to help but like you said, the need to seem like they're doing something is more important than them taking the time to actually find a good solution so they just go with the first one that ticks some of the boxes

[@jmjedi923]

That's why I hate the idea of banning guns, whenever you ban something bad actors are just going to find another way to do that thing. It happens with every ban on something

[@tehvvisard]

Its very easy for Apple, Meta or any messaging app to block the bill. Just place a block on video messages for 24 hours and watch the media cycle disrupt it. A well placed add on most sites explaining this would also not be a bad idea

[@davidty2006]

Also can get anonymous to hack the government's stuff and leak the classified infomation.

[@1987mdr]

What you failed to mention is that in order for the tech companies to be able to snoop into people's private messages they would have to create 'backdoor' access to their service meaning anyone and everyone (wherever in the world they are) can have access or be accessed by someone other than governments/app developers, not to mention that passing this law in its current format would mean that the UK will be (yet again) going against international laws that they themseves have signed up to.

[@blaselina9944]

how are U doing today

[@berserkirclaws107]

I have always wanted to travel to China...now China is coming to us.

[@blindbrad4719]

I'm already getting into the spirit, yesterday I ate my dog…

[@navboi12]

@@blindbrad4719 You have me in stitches!!

[@jason38800]

britain is the most surveilled country in the world, they are more china than china.

[@winj3r]

It's bad to se one of the strongest democracies in the world, taking a turn into fascism. Here in Portugal, we had a fascist state, that spied and oppressed it' people. And I can tell you this is a terrible thing for a government to do. I hope the British people won't allow fascists to gain so much power with these new laws.

[@NGRevenant]

britain has been a fascist state for a while now, the police don't police crime anymore they police political opinion.

[@hardcorelace7565]

It's not fascism, it's incompetence. The government do not know, or do not care about the effects. Like fascist would be a government who are pushing for a national agenda of superiority and racism, and while this government is racist, it's not pushing for more racism. It's not fascist and it's not dictatorial.

[@TheCheesedodo]

​@@hardcorelace7565the government is pushing for endless new levels of racism so not sure what you mean

[@samsniper2000]

Britain is not one of the strongest democracies in the world lmao.

[@noirekuroraigami2270]

Strongest Democracy😂 half of parliament is literally accessible to Nobles and they have a King😂😂😂😂

[@aspzx]

It honestly sounds like MPs do not care about preventing terrorism or abuse material. If they did, they would work with Apple and WhatsApp to create a system of client-side scanning that those companies would be willing to accept. We know for example that Apple wanted to introduce such a technology to scan for CSAM in iOS in 2021. So if MPs actually don't care about this, maybe it's safe to ignore?

[@aspzx]

@tiepup if MPs are requesting what Apple has already agreed to provide then why are Apple threatening to shutdown iMessage and Facetime in the UK? My point is that if MPs really care about this technology they would at the very least mandate the kind of technology that Apple has already approved for introduction to iOS.

[@SuperSmashDolls]

Apple dropped the CSAM scanner because people figured out how to fool it to make images that look innocuous (e.g. a funny meme picture) but get you flagged for CSAM if you save them into iCloud. All CSAM scanning has this vulnerability but doing it on-device makes it WAY easier to engineer these kinds of false-positive images. So pranksters or politically-motivated pedos could create shittons of false reports to render the system useless, or people could send you a bunch of innocuous images that gets you banned from the Internet if nobody's checking the reports being sent.

[@JeanLooksPicard]

⁠​⁠@@aspzxeven apple backed down on the CSAM scanning they came up with from backlash so why should the government push for it. Both solutions are monumental overreaches ripe for abuse on issues that affect a minority of the population. If they really care about dealing with these issues it should be through much more severe sentencing and holding company executives accountable not encroaching on our privacy rights. All that companies like Facebook need to address the problem material is for their executives to know they’d be directly held accountable for their decisions as should be the case.

[@billclinton3862]

I remember the troll trace episode from south park saying how maybe letting everyone see someone else's messages isn't a good idea. Now we literally have a government trying to do this... This cannot be made up!

[@hahahehehoho8191]

If they actually apply this then people in the UK should start each online conversation with 'Sunak, stuck it'

[@grapetoad6595]

The most significant problem isn't the privacy violation. It's the fact that the government is creating a backdoor into these services, weakening the encryption. This would be an area which 'hackers' could take advantage of. Even if the government only acted in a way that is in the spirit of the law, there would still be a problem. Like most things, the government hasn't thought it through.

[@MrSamoDude]

This government never think anything through!

[@geekexmachina]

I'd be interested to know how these "Skilled people" are selected and Impartiality is questionable, for example sifting through messages would give them access to business sensitive data as well as personal data. I would be interested in knowing how the bills implementation would handle issues of GDPR.

[@vyran7044]

Even better they would have access to the GOVERNMENTS OWN CONVERSATIONS given that, apparently and for some inexplicable reason, they are doing a lit of their buisness via watsapp. ^^

[@andykww]

Very concerning. This is going the way of what the CCP does with its tech firms.

[@robeagleR]

VPNs, Sideloading,Alternate Appstores, Jailbreaking are about to become extremely popular in the UK 👍

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Also small home grown OSes.

[@rubberduck3y6]

Banning VPNs is part of the Bill. An amendment that was added by Labour!

[@blindbrad4719]

Surprised I didn't see a VPN advert at the end of this video 😂

[@nielslachat]

Very interesting video! One remark: please don't use the phrase "watering down encryption". This implies that it's somehow possible to have weaker encryption that still protects the data in some way. Technically you can make encryption gradually weaker (choosing shorter encryption keys for example), but in practice this is equivalent to completely removing the encryption, as anyone with enough computational power at their disposal can break the weaker encryption (which could be almost anyone, or literally anyone a few years down the line). Either you have strong encryption, or you have no encryption.

[@ralphm6901]

Right. And there's no "alternative key" to decrypt something. Something can be encrypted and decrypted by the same key, OR encrypted with one key and decrypted with another. There's no option for a "backdoor" or alternative key. Having said that, the app *could* possibly encrypt each message as it currently does, then encrypt a second copy with the government's key to send to the government. That would preserve the strong encryption, but once the government decryption key became known, all messages might as well be in plain text.

[@nielslachat]

@@ralphm6901 Yeah, that would be a less terrible way to do it. The thing with all these types of regulations is that it reduces security and privacy for the average people, and criminals stay protected because they know how to use secure services anyway. It simply cannot have the desired impact.

[@ralphm6901]

@@nielslachat if they had a reliable way to distinguish between encrypted messaging traffic and normal web browser encrypted traffic, they might be able to stop the messaging without impacting e.g. online banking. On the other hand, I could use a web browser to go to an email service, write a message and save it as a draft, then my buddy logs into the same account to read and alter my draft. Lather, rinse, repeat. No messaging app, just on-the-fly browser encryption. My buddy could even use a different email service for his replies, so anyone cracking my account would only see one side of the conversation. It wouldn't be very hard to encrypt a message outside any messaging app, then send it as an attachment. My buddy would save it and decrypt it outside the messaging app. The government could happily decrypt the message and get apparent garbage.

[@rubberduck3y6]

Encryption is either there for everyone, or for no one. There is no "watered down" encryption or "government only backdown". EVERYONE will be able to read EVERYTHING you send online with this horrible Bill.

[@alexrusu2905]

I am beginning to think that moving to the UK was a mistake

[@JoJubjub-kx8lp]

Yeah this country is shit dude

[@NichoTBE]

“Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.” Benjamin Franklin

[@bzuidgeest]

He was an idiot. You have to balance liberty and security. Without security you cannot have true liberty. And without some limitations on liberty, you cannot have security. This quote is typical US bullshit. The US is one of the more broken democracies in the world. Sounds nice, until you understand the true implications.

[@Tommysimonsen]

About time, I been telling the goverment how much it suck for a long time, it newer listen, read my messages.

[@MrExplosion449]

I can’t believe I’m on the same side as the trillion dollar companies

[@davidty2006]

Internet is really weird. But everyone can agree that governments running it is a bad idea.

[@ralphm6901]

I think Signal relies on user donations to keep running. That way they are independent of any Big Money demands.

[@Connie_TinuityError]

be honest, when were you ever on the side of the government?

[@MrExplosion449]

@@Connie_TinuityError it happens very occasionally

[@doc_eyebrow]

Even if the legislation was approved, people will still work around it like how anti-vax people used carrot emojis 🥕

[@christopherhumphrys7398]

They made a film on this where King Charles dissolved parliament over this issue.

[@Futurus_YT]

Loved that film

[@tarekali4u]

Which film is this?

[@heyhonpuds]

@@tarekali4u King Charles III

[@WhiteManInAVan]

We now get to see if a Britain without the EU is as strong as a Britain inside the EU. I have a feeling we maybe slapped in the face and Brexiteers will have to acknowledge that we are now alot weaker.

[@alexbrown1050]

No one is going to operate their service here with this bill. This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[@lwinklly]

THANK YOU FOR COVERING THIS I sent an email to my MP about my concerns around it several months ago. Giving OFCOM more power is almost always a bad idea because OFCOM often don't take proper action on complaints or other issues

[@shadowninja6689]

There's no way that the foreign companies who have said they'd pull out of the UK over this law won't do so. They would completely undermining the entire appeal of their whole product if they destroyed encryption for the UK, a fraction of their market. It's the entire point of apps like Signal, and Apple wouldn't even need to pull out of the UK they've already said that they'd just disable the effected apps in the UK so that no one in the UK could use them period while the rest of the world would be uneffected.

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

Even worse the US is pushing a very similar bill called the Kids Online Safety Bill

[@melissalayson7275]

Except it won't pass the Senate. Since the Democrats control the Senate and won't pass it. And even if it does, President Biden won't sign into law. So we're safe on that bill for now, at least.

[@haydenhoodless2055]

@@detdvr4498 In theory if it passes under a conservative government, a labour government in the future could undo it. The problem is Starmer is the kind of leader that likes this type of control too.

[@eddiecalderone]

@@detdvr4498 The USA have also police officers who are armed and use their weapons frequently to deal with perceived threat

[@JoJubjub-kx8lp]

Nothing will be repealed

[@trailblazercombi]

0:53 It should be noted that if governments and organizations can do so, so can malicious actors (foregin "enemy" governments or your neighbor's child the hacker, with enough patience)

[@taragwendolyn]

The bad actors are just going to find another platform, or encrypt their messages before uploading them to the public networks. At the most charitable this is security theatre, but in practical terms it just harms the honest users without any tangible effect.

[@noirekuroraigami2270]

It’s not about bad actors it’s about Information control You people in the UK are morons

[@masked_swan]

I don’t think it’s out of the question at all. The UK government isn’t as powerful as it once was on the world stage and Microsoft is in the process of strong arming them to have their acquisition of Activision go through. This bill is a gross attempt at surveillance and most social media platforms would rather leave a declining market than deal with a government who’s already losing public support and power.

[@carrias1]

Skilled person writes a report, government ignores the report and does it anyway…

[@homobohemicus]

I am sure HIS communication will be encrypted... security and all, right?

[@EDoyl]

There are some projects available like Ourphone which allow you to build your own linux smartphone with very little technical know-how (and if major privacy invasions happen there will be a small industry creating such phones for people with no technical know-how). Unbreakable end-to-end message encryption is mathematically simple, so numerous solutions are already available and more will be created if it becomes important. If you want your privacy, you can have it with relatively few sacrifices, and it'll become even easier if invasions become more pervasive and the market for privacy grows.

[@MrWolfPants]

This is totally uninforcable. Meta/Signal etc will likely just refuse. And given the ability of this government they will probably faff around and not know what to do about it. Leaving the law useless.

[@JoJubjub-kx8lp]

They will be bribed and u turn, national pastime now

[@DaWrecka]

A problem not covered by this video is the fact that weakening encryption is universal. You can't put in a backdoor for some that can't be used by others. Mathematics does not work that way. Now sure, the backdoor's existence doesn't immediately allow third parties to decrypt the data - but it's only a matter of time before the backdoor is found. Once that happens there's no putting that toothpaste back in its tube - it'll be spread all over the Internet for any bad actor to use, and there's no way to prevent that happening. Which may be part of the reason so many companies are prepared to just abandon the UK entirely if this law is put into effect - they can't have a "UK mode" with less encryption without that mode being usable by bad actors to compromise the privacy of users in other countries the moment the wrong key is leaked, so it's better for them to lose the entire UK market than to harm their non-UK users, which outnumber us by tens or maybe even hundreds of millions to one in some cases.

[@Skipping2HellPHX]

7:35 It is hard to see how the UK can think it has the power to play this game. While it may have an outsized economy per capita, it is still a small country with few economic allies. A 2% cut in users is bad, but hardly cause for concern

[@gabood]

The problem with the bill mainly comes in clause 110 which reads as follows; Offences in connection with information notices (1) A person commits an offence if the person fails to comply with a requirement of an information notice. (2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show that- (a) it was not reasonably practicable to comply with the requirements of the information notice at the time required by the notice, but (b) the person has subsequently taken all reasonable steps to comply with those requirements. (3) A person commits an offence if, in response to an information notice- (a) the person provides information that is false in a material respect, and (b) at the time the person provides it, the person knows that it is false in a material respect or is reckless as to whether it is false in a material respect. (4) A person commits an offence if, in response to an information notice, the person- (a) provides information which is encrypted such that it is not possible for OFCOM to understand it, or produces a document which is encrypted such that it is not possible for OFCOM to understand the information it contains, and (b) the person’s intention was to prevent OFCOM from understanding such information. There’s 2 glaring problems with this, first of all is how broad it is when talking about misinformation, who decides what information isn’t true? And the second problem is the afformentioned encryption issue, this part isn’t so focused on messaging apps and social media, but much looser with the wording. Meaning of a journalist for example has an encrypted hard drive, they are required to give up the password. Lots of normal people use this as well, it’s a feature built into all major operating systems, including phones. The broadness of the entire bill is mainly what concerns me. There’s another part in the bill about mandatory interviews and being legally required to talk. It’s a very scary piece of legislation that’s not getting enough attention.

[@CARL_093]

there is no privacy this days if this happens

[@DarceG-jh1ik]

I grew up in Germany where people take privacy very seriously. Sometimes it may go over the top. However, when the country has a history which includes mass surveillance at a level England has never experienced, and the effect on the trust between ordinary citizens was severely reduced as a result, this has lead to the modern German approach being one of caution.

[@Daneki]

That close up of Sunak's face at 0.48 really triggered uncanny valley in me. Anyone else?

[@Nightzo]

The UK: By leaving the EU we'll be able to create our own laws Also the UK:

[@hughjass1044]

There are many of these types of laws either already in place or being considered in many countries and they need to be resisted with all possible means. I'm not much of a big tech fan but I hope they make good on their threats and plunge the online world into utter chaos which the citizenry will then turn around and unleash upon their governments.

[@JUAN_OLIVIER]

The authoritarians in the government is probably very exited about this bill.

[@RaymondwLin]

Hackers must be licking their lips right now.

[@numberpirate]

As an American, all I can say is, when your revolution starts, expect me to be there along with a bunch of my countrymen.

[@moussaalmoussa6989]

In Russia, they have an application called vk, which is the facebook and instagram version in Russia. The Russian goverment takes the control of it and it is allowed to access the users messages, so if Russian people want to send any private message, they have to rely upon whatsapp and telegram for instance. In the vk application, and since Russia wants to spread its propaganda, if the government sees any skeptical content or messages, it might prison the person for several years, therefore it is normal that the Russian users in vk will send some symbols instead of actual words between one another. For instance instead of typing 'war', they type something like '#@#' and the harder the code, the better, and the other person has to guess its meaning. Also sometimes, they might force you to open telegram in front of the cops to see your private messages if they are skeptical. Therefore, I am not really an advocate for that and it might affect the freedom of speech and anything might be considered to be terrorrist depending on the government. PRIVACY has to be important

[@Jose-xh5qb]

This is why out of touch old men should not be allowed to write laws.

[@leswatson8563]

I bet those rich people who use inscription to hide money so as to not pay tax will end up with exemptions..? 😂😂😂

[@bzuidgeest]

Likely the companies will just stay until the government actually tries to use the bill to remove encryption. My guess is the bill's requirements will never be enforced. Then again, those companies might leave to avoid the threat of lawsuits or in case of things like Whatsapp just display a message that when in the UK your messages are not protected.

[@R4Y7]

The best part is it wont be effective as criminals would switch to alternatives

[@DashCamSheffield]

the alternatives will still be under the same rules. Whatsapp are just the biggest, and under Meta/Facebook. By moving to an alternative as well, your just putting a target on yourself, as less people use them, like Signal or Tencent QQ so it'll be easier to scan/search them.

[@R4Y7]

@@DashCamSheffield by alternatives i dont exclusively mean big brands, rather either encrypted devices which could fly under the radar as they are designed to be discrete or simply using TOR. I also assume it would be hard to identify a few people using a different app out of millions of people

[@50_Pence]

@@DashCamSheffield run your own server.

[@Cathalheraty69]

Oh no rishi is reading my snap chat messages. Hopefully he doesn't find out my gingerphobia

[@xeanderman6688]

"Some people just don't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance." -JC Denton, Deus Ex

[@prometheus7387]

Don't think the UK has the same leverage over tech conpanies now that it's out of the EU

[@trickvro]

To paraphrase Tom Scott, "I've got nothing to hide" only makes sense if you share the values and priorities of the people in power 100%, now and in perpetuity. If you see yourself as a law-abiding citizen and don't understand what the fuss is about, imagine what would happen if your ideological opponents came to power and had the ability to deem you a criminal.

[@Pemmont107]

Another reason to get rid of them.

[@AM2K2]

True - the left these days are all about free speech 😅

[@0xCAFEF00D]

5:08 This argument doesn't seem to hold at all. This is a British law, it's highly unlikely to have any impact on that.

[@20quid]

Nope, Encryption is just maths and you can't outlaw maths. Even if I have to encrypt messages myself before I sent them through an online service I'm not consenting to anyone ready my messages without probably cause.

[@monkeyboy8424]

I hope he reads this. Sunak LIED about "government integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level" - 25/10/22 outside number 10.

[@gareth6233]

iMessage and WhatsApp will withdraw from the UK and we’re all back to using landlines.

[@NameGoesHere-rw4ji]

I love when authority starts any subject with, “Don’t worry because…” Worry - worry a lot.

[@eris9062]

I think that they'd likely withdraw, because while yes having fewer customers would hurt their bottom line, so would drafting new systems, hiring employees to implement and maintain them, the cost of all the computing power necessary to do so, and the likelihood that people from other countries would find an alternative, not to mention their reluctance to set a precedent that they're willing to cave. If memory serves the US government tried to pressure Apple into allowing the FBI to have free access to people's texts and Apple refused then, so why would they cave to a country like the UK that has 1/5th of the population and 1/7th of the GDP of the US?

[@zurielsss]

Does the govt even use their heads before passing a bill? A law that is unenforceable just make you look like a joke

[@the_washingmachine1295]

It's not the UK lowering security standards though. IIrc EU already has implemented something similar.

[@LochyP]

If this passes, I'm leaving the UK. Absolutely unbelievable.

[@JohnyByrne]

Maybe I’m paranoid but I thought the secret service could read our messages and emails already?

[@redmozzy]

I work in tech / cyber security and I am telling you, these companies will walk from the uk rather than lower their security. Their systems are all integrated, they have to be for it to work so you can’t just lower it for the uk as your security is only as good as it’s weakest point. If they lower just uk users, cyber criminals will obviously know this is the weak link and watch the cyber attacks on uk ip addresses rocket… If this law passes, it won’t just be whatsapp etc that will be targeted but all of our systems, anything using a uk up address. I cannot stress this enough, if this bill goes through, buy a good vpn and host yourself outside of the uk.

[@MawieStevens]

Big brother is watching you ( he really is )

[@cambelin1545]

If the Bill goes through lords unamended then I WILL be eliminating my digital footprint the same day. Until I can move to another nation.

[@eldrago19]

Ofcom already regulates certain parts of the internet. For example they gave the firm I worked for 3 days notice to block a number of Russian Government owned news websites.

[@bzuidgeest]

Nobody is complaining about such things, you didn't understand the video it seems

[@CarlosGordo97]

This is bad.

[@Froge0]

It sucks how in the UK your choices are Auth Right & Auth Left, both major parties love this kind of privacy invasion

[@sumisusan1517]

Where would Lib Dem’s stand in all of this?

[@redderthanmisty6762]

​@mr-andrew Absolutely this. The last glimmer of hope for labour returning to a party, whose goal is to even somewhat represent the proletariat, died out with all of the smear on corbyn.

[@sumisusan1517]

@@redderthanmisty6762 maybe a return to NewLabour could fit the bill

[@davidty2006]

@mr-andrew Labour isn't right wing mate. It's centrist/center-left.

[@MrOliver1444]

Now the UK government and the Tory party in particular, get more informations about their voters to let them wave more often the Union flag and let them vote against their own interests and make more money.

[@miketran4289]

Bless the conservatives for looking out for everyone even if they don't want it. 1984 is certainly in the UK's future yet they are blind to it.

[@noodles8203]

It was never about keeping anyone safe.

[@yuki-sakurakawa]

Would really love for you to do a TLDR Australia & NZ. I was watching a show from Australia and the host and guests are talking about banks being able to freeze your bank accounts for essentially what THEY DEEM as antisocial behaviour, without warrant or conviction. This means that if you say something you shouldn't (by their arbitrary and changing standards), you could lose access to your bank account. This is big sister (corporate) nightmare. And none of the guests or host even brought that up.

[@rso823]

Why should social media companies be responsible for blocking a persons haters?

[@yuvalne]

should have expanded a bit about Signal's warning: they're basically daring tthe UK to block them, as if they were China or Iran, knowing these blockades can be circumvented.

[@aycc-nbh7289]

Could this potentially mean the UK becomes barred from accessing the EU market over the Internet over GDPR violations? We’ve already seen the USA almost get banned.

[@ChaChaChief]

Monarchy is more desirable day by day.

[@gio3061]

How dare the EU! OH WAIT

[@beanoboy62]

Rishi I swear to god man can you and this government stop being the worst for 10 minutes.

[@minidingbat265]

They way thie bill is written shows that they either have no idea what they are talking about or they know exactly what thet they are doing. Both are equally scary

[@bradavon]

Client Side Scanning would also mean it's running on our phones 😱. That's what Client Side means.

[@StephenBanyar]

Welp, the guys on the XDA forums are gonna have a field day finding and exterminating the "client-side scanning" software from Android phones.

[@evaldaszmitra7322]

Ok, ban it in whatsapp... I can whip out a private p2p messaging app in a weekend. Also chats in games are usually private and encrypted, so the server can't see it. Sometimes chats in games are even p2p... What are you preventing here?