Online Safety Bill debate: Could it lead to ‘unprecedented paradigm-shifting surveillance’?

[@reallymakesyouthink]

He's using protecting children as his defence which if was really a concern they'd be fining big social media companies for what they allow on their platforms. This has nothing to do with protection of children.

[@maxdowney3717]

Exactly, got to love how our corrupt politicians all treat us like we're thick as sh*t.

[@You_Tube000]

Seems like you don’t care about kids committing suicide or being abused by sexual predators. Perhaps you are one, eh?

[@fl570]

Typical government. Using the "oh, would someone think about the children!" card as an excuse for proposing and promoting legislation that legalises mass surveillance on an individual basis (as if there wasn't enough of that already). The West hates China so much yet they seem to really like the surveillance state they've got set up over there, so much so that they're clearly taking notes. Pathetic.

[@cordiiispears6803]

That’s a part of the bill too.

[@JimmySaul888]

“What about the children?!” The siren call of the petty despot.

[@metalhead2550]

Not all heroes wear capes as demonstrated here by Meredith

[@shan6938]

She actually lying! At first she said she can't look into the encrypted but then she questioned back to the guy said are you gonna shadowing me at work? of course we can look the content but I can't really tell you how because of confidentiality??!

[@mga59xbd38]

So the law doesn’t require encryption to be broken but requires that messaging platforms that offer it provide a way to detect criminal content. Absolutely insane and unworkable.

[@danhaydon7291]

Quantum computing?

[@mga59xbd38]

@@danhaydon7291 And what's that?

[@insertnamehere4550]

​@@mga59xbd38 A buzzword, like AI, blockchain or chatbot.

[@timgilligan3885]

@@mga59xbd38 - Quantum computing is quantum computing. There's nothing to compare it to. If you really want to understand quantum computing - which you almost certainly won't be able to do if your response is anything to go by - do a bit of homework so you don't come off looking like a total ignoramus.

[@hooting-ton5215]

​@@irontroothYou mean a lock and key that only you and the people you trust should have access too?

[@TheTick20001]

The lady is entirely correct, there's no such thing as a back door that only the good guys can use. Our govt needs to reign it's neck in right now.

[@TheTick20001]

@@funnyflix895 Any proof that the Signal protocol encryption has been successfully hacked? And the "good guys" should be trying to stop the bad guys cracking communications - not joining them!

[@LibertyOverDeath-27]

Not to mention that the supposed good guys we're supposed to trust (government agents) are sometimes wolves in sheeps' clothing with malicious intentions who don't give a damn about our rights or the law.

[@ChrisP872]

@@funnyflix895 You fundamentally misunderstand the issue. The bad guys can misuse the technology just like any other technology. But the bad guys can't decrypt messages sent by Signal.

[@greasybrownie]

@@funnyflix895 the majority of messenging apps already have back doors that are abused by both good and bad. signal not so much. this excuse that they're the good guys is a mask, they (mainly the five eyes) want to see it all. the protection of children isn't their priority it's to make the average joe willingly give up their private info/conversations

[@gabegalleries]

Meredith absolutely killed it. Concise and precise, professional and sounds like she knows absolutely what she's doing.

[@mtssvnsn]

And the other guy is the exact opposite. Typical slimy lying politician.

[@caidurkan2916]

With a special guest appearance from the presenter who managed to make Jordan Peterson seem rational by comparison in that dreadful 'debate'. Plenty of other confident and smart people get torn apart by the fucking tories and their fluffers on these farcical debates; Whittaker managed to sound incredibly knowledgeable without giving the conservatives any room to harp on a particular point, which is even more impressive. This was a joy to watch, because it resembled an actual conversation. We're severely deprived of actual political debate right now in this country, especially in any official capacity.

[@sh856531]

I had the exact opposite view. She just seemed equally tediously media trained and also failing to connect with some of the nuance of the debate. She would make a fine politician

[@shan6938]

@@sh856531 Agreed! At first she said she can't look into the encrypted but then she questioned back to the guy said are you gonna shadowing me at work? of course we can look the content but I can't really tell you how because of confidentiality??! She actually lying!

[@bereal2366]

If they really do care about childeren then why not demand the Epstine list lol ,, they just gonna keep repeating the verse ''we care about u'' till u believe it ,,,

[@richardabbot8724]

Every loss of freedom is first presented as a ‘protection’.

[@battlemachine9031]

Ah I see , Benjamin's quote. Nice reference

[@JimmySaul888]

“Save the children!” Whenever I hear that, I know the totalitarians are at work. “Who would argue w protecting children? You don’t want to give the government control over speech? You must be against children. What have you got to hide? Open up your phone and show us. After all, it’s just to keep you ‘safe’.”

[@martinspeer262]

Yep

[@hugorebelo129]

The company provides a messaging service. How can they be allowed to spy on messages being sent? does Royal Mail open the letters to see if a crime is being organised? encryption provides the assurance that no one can open the letter. no one, period.

[@randgate]

Exactly, next you'll not be allowed to have a private conversation without the Bojotron 9000 listening in for anything risky.

[@eddouglas]

never thought of that - that's exactly what it's like - reading every royal mail letter just in case...

[@wurstsalatohnegurke]

I like that example…

[@kenp291]

I'm completely sympathetic to the encryption argument, but I'm not a fan of this type of "debate" as both parties have a position that isn't necessarily about finding a solution. The parallel with the Royal Mail probably doesn't hold up as (say) the police had evidence that a law had been broken, letters and parcels could be opened and viewed. It's a similar issue to wiretapping (or its modern equivalent), or luggage being scanned before being put on a plane. Privacy can be put to one side, if there is a reasonable suspicion that laws have been broken or that "bad actors" could take advantage. At best many laws are a balance of private freedoms vs wider good, even delaying a journey at a red traffic light. I don't think there should be a law forcing access to encrypted services, for the reasons that Meredith Whittaker gives but I am interested as to how an organisation such as Signal would/does respond when evidence is presented - her reply felt a bit too defensive. I think that the much bigger question is the open platforms such as Fb not being held accountable for the harmful content being served to children by their own algorithms (such as the terrible case with Molly Russell) and the lack of respect for privacy and misuse of data (also with children's accounts). I think there's an interesting discussion to be had but this format is designed to be adversarial.

[@randgate]

​@@kenp291 The format is adversarial but the argument is really 1 or 0, privacy or no privacy, trust or untrusted, freedom or captivity. You should not shoot the carrier pigeon for the messages of its master.

[@onezerooneseven]

It's like a company renting out meetings rooms for businesses. They might have in their terms and conditions that nothing illegal can take place. But no-one would expect it was proportional for the company to install listening devices so they can monitor activity to check. The whole bill is a non-starter.

[@EskiLdn]

Its passed

[@GeorgeyTheApe]

​@@EskiLdnyeah 😔

[@HODL_BTC]

Government overreach at its finest.

[@columnedfox5508]

it's basically turned into china 2.0

[@GazGuitarz]

@@columnedfox5508 That's because the CCP model is the template that will be stamped upon us all. CCP have been hosting WEF Summer Davos meetings since 2007. They are all in the same bed together.

[@naughtywizard]

@@GazGuitarz Glad to see more people aware of this. Keep going

[@aikighost]

most of modern government is overreach.

[@ginalibrizzi5204]

How do you regulate the content of postal mail communications? Of bike messenger packages? Other courier services? Abuses aren't committed exclusively via digital messaging. I think this subtlety is being overlooked because of the offenses committed by social media and large tech platforms. Person-to-person communication needs to be private, regardless of the "technology" used to deliver it!

[@ChangesOneTim]

Almost since postal and public telephone services were invented, there has always been "regulation" in the shape of law enforcement powers. For example, for over 100 years it's been a specific offence in the UK to send obscene material through the mail. There have long been police powers to intercept letters/ packages/ phone calls (and more recently fax, telegram, email, internet etc) with reason to believe that they are being used in criminal activity. All of these communication methods have "back doors" alright, but no government in the free world has never required service providers routinely to spy/snoop on their customers...I have never heard of any being prosecuted for failing to stop customer breaches of their "terms of service"! Encrypted messaging platforms are fast becoming the new comms normal, so I reckon governments have woken up too late to legislate effectively.

[@antonioandresgarcia5130]

It shouldn't come as a surprise, but I will always be amazed by people who write bills and have no idea about what they write about. Mate, either you protect everyone or no one. There is no middle ground. That's encryption. Nothing to discuss. It's maths.

[@Mark1024MAK]

Unfortunately politicians don’t understand, they think because they think of an idea, there will be a way to make it work. This is demonstrated in countless laws passed in recent times…

[@maxdowney3717]

They're just following orders from higher up, that's why. Slippery bent politicians always cover their intentions up with 'it's to protect you and your children.' His party has been relentlessly doing everything in their power to limit the powers of voters ie our democracy for a long time now, they'll have much more control of the populace after this and we'll typically take it lying down.

[@solothebest1]

The excuse that it protects children is just crazy. Despite claiming they care about children protection yet they really don’t do anything effective like putting enough money on the issues relating to children. But the money used for surveillance is on another level even tho it’s effectiveness can be questioned. Numbers don’t lie 😂

[@gnhonho]

That journalist must be joking... What happens if someone sends a photograph of abuse using Royal Mail? Does that mean every letter in the country will be open and read? These people are supposed to be a little bit less dumb to be where they are. This interview is an absolute disgrace.

[@antonymossop3135]

With Raman spectroscopy and advanced pattern recognition... they can probably read it without opening it. It'd cost a fortune... Hmm....

[@slider799]

It's worse than that. If you extend this anyone who makes a knife should be responsible for any murder with a knife. Or anyone who creates a camera should be responsible for how the camera is used. Obviously this can't possibly be viable. Just like the argument being presented.

[@mortdewerewolfe691]

It's already an offence for us to send illegal material via post ( Royal Mail won't even send some LEGAL material via post see Obscene Publications Acts 1955/64 ), email or social media anyway. Banning encryption won't make any difference to that.

[@antonymossop3135]

@@mortdewerewolfe691 Yes, but how does the royal mail check that that law is adhered to, and what is the legal mandate in this regard? I don't believe they're expected to open every letter and photograph the contents....

[@ChangesOneTim]

A badly-conducted interview I agree, but it misses the point that Royal Mail and all other unencrypted forms of communication are *capable* of being intercepted. Regardless of whether service companies/ providers have a duty to do any checks on their users, enforcement authorities can order them to monitor/ intercept as and when there is reason to believe an offence is being committed. That said, Whittaker and Collins both make very important points. On the one hand, with all-encryption it's (apparently) impossible for messaging providers to enforce their own T&Cs of use let alone detect crime; on the other hand, decryption is (apparently) 'all or nothing' so if messaging providers were to give enforcement authorities the only 'keys' then before long they're bound to get copied and fall into the wrong hands.

[@grantmck9659]

This is what happens when you get someone who knows what they are talking about debating someone who's career has been 3word phrases for the last 5 years. He looks extremely uncomfortable trying to follow the conversation.

[@LA-ic2op]

His funders in the Censorship Industrial Complex and the bureaucrats who'll administer this will reward him very well if he can get this through.

[@AemsMC]

Jesus christ why don't the host or the MP understand the very basics of encryption. The lady from Signal is vastly more intelligent than both of them. The subject is the wording of the bill and the law, not "how does Signal police its terms and service". Theyre focusing on the wrong thing. She's trying to bring the host and the MP back to the main question and theyre too stupid to actually have a proper conversation.

[@StuartJ]

Damian Collins is a puppet for The Blob. The Blob has been trying to get rid of encryption for a decade. This is just the latest attempt, and no surprises that it's vague in it's terminology. They want this to pass, in the hope in 5 years or so, they can claim it was a success, and widen it's scope further. Damian Collins is just the latest MP that has been talked into this.

[@maxdowney3717]

I doubt it's stupidity, more likely they simply share the same insidious agenda to condition the public into accepting the loss of their privacy rights.

[@MsZeeZed]

Its pretty common for the UK current government to talk about useful action, but completely fail to write legislation specific enough to achieve what they talk about without breaking basic freedoms. Either they are the most incompetent government or they are deliberately writing laws that have nothing to do with their debating points. Write some good legislation, call for martial law or just go back to fiddling your expenses until being voted out because this “half-assery” is of no use to anyone.

[@mortdewerewolfe691]

Governments can't impose ''martial law'' btw. You need to learn what that means ( suspension of civilian govt. by armed forces due to civ. admin's cessation of function)

[@alexwestconsulting]

keeping it vague is the oldest trick in the book

[@1pauljs]

The nerve of that guy suggest Meredith wasn’t giving straight answers!

[@ChangesOneTim]

Actually, sometimes she wasn't; notably on "how would you show the regulator that you are enforcing your terms and conditions of use?" Eventually she admitted that, with encryption, they cannot.

[@korewatori]

​@@ChangesOneTimshe only took so long to admit that because the two were hassling her

[@NachoCheese1990]

Wow Meredith, amazing job! Please do more public broadcasting work.

[@samshep70]

State is afraid of the public

[@Captain.Pugwash]

Small wonder, given what cnts the authorities are.

[@geekerella7296]

The State should always be afraid of the public when they know they're screwing us over. And they have been screwing us over for some time.

[@dnxls_]

Meredith advocated herself really well. I hope anyone notice/s/d

[@antlerman7644]

she was just running in circles tho, i thought she sounded so idiolistic and out of touch

[@TomMAF4]

@@antlerman7644she was having to repeat points because the politician kept ignoring/not understanding her points so she had to repeat them again and again

[@deivids5190]

@@antlerman7644 because the facts kept falling on deaf ears.

[@r.n.4765]

​@@antlerman7644Perhaps, you're the one out of touch here, man. She did very well under the circumstances. They both did, with the understanding they have, to be completely fair. The host was not very helpful in facilitating a healthy discussion, so points has to be repeated over an over. That's not being out of touch, that's what you have to do when your concerns aren't being taken seriously.

[@nighttrain1236]

Yes, she's very good.

[@mckendrick7672]

"It doesn't require the breaking of encryption" Sure, but what's the point of encryption if the message is being scanned by exactly the people you're encrypting to hide from beforehand anyways?

[@nish663]

If only I had a penny for every single time the Tories lied...

[@LA-ic2op]

All politicians, bureacrats, civil societies and charities lie far more than most.

[@aikighost]

It's not just the tories who are always pushing for more unwarranted surveillance of normal people, all governments do it.

[@sharongillesp]

The male guest’s opening statement: “I don’t accept that …,” is neither an argument nor a dispute against surveillance. For those who may not study critical analysis, this is the kind of talk that seeks to cover-up and undermine facts.

[@Radagast-]

Only the truly paranoid need this much control.

[@You_Tube000]

child abuse is not paranoid, it is brutally real.

[@Radagast-]

@@You_Tube000 I didn't say abuse wasn't real - so don't twist my words. The use of it as justification for further surveillance *is* evidence of paranoia... Or do you believe that the Investigatory Powers Act is insufficient for bulk and targeted comms interception?

[@You_Tube000]

@@Radagast- your word salad is telling. I do not play with toys like social media or messaging apps, they are entertainment to me, nothing more. So yes, I want surveillance and I want it heavy, because heavy-handed infiltration, where all messages are ‘interceptable’ prevents razor blade apples being eaten by kids tricky or treating during Halloween, alas, people like you have dark secrets you wish to hide, so obviously you don’t want it.

[@haxstir]

@@You_Tube000 The cure for it isn't mass surveillance though. And mass surveillance is for other uses beyond criminality. Snowden etc showed us that.

[@ProfessorChocolateCake]

@@You_Tube000 Nice try, fed.

[@mtssvnsn]

I want to know what IKEA is doing to prevent crimes being committed in the beds they sell. Now... I'm not saying the law should specify cameras in every bedroom, but some kind of ocular inspection device is clearly necessary. For the children.

[@thedeadguy]

And adults are destructively bored because of it. kids shouldn't be on the internet.

[@nflynn]

Great advert for Signal

[@OceanGateEngineer4Hire]

"The reason we need these regulations in tech is because everyone can see, sitting down with a tech company and trying to get straight answers to simple questions is very difficult." The sheer AUDACITY of a politician making that statement is staggering.

[@aikighost]

Also what he really means by "get straight answers to simple questions" is "getting them to agree to abuse their users privacy for our benefit"

[@OceanGateEngineer4Hire]

@@aikighost 💯💯💯

[@projectalice8119]

It always starts out with “we’re doing this for the good of the people”, but it never remains that way.

[@Brando23Commando]

Of hes so concerned about child exploitation, why not go after criminals in real life without violating everyone's rights while setting a precedent for tyrants. This is egregious

[@lisathiedeman4487]

Well said!

[@misc_channel]

The online harms bill has absolutely no place in a liberal democracy. More people must be made aware of how dangerous this bill is, because most still think it's about "protecting children".

[@Anon-xd3cf]

Much like most of the governments legislation... It creates exactly the thing it purportedly seeks to bring an end to.

[@Masterboss2]

They are using it as an excuse but what they are really doing is they are using a communist way of controlling the internet and knowing what is happening

[@pionelpessi1022]

Thank you Meredith for standing up for our free speech.

[@bugwandis]

Yeah there a reason what he's talking about isn’t written into the law and that’s because they intend to overreach once it's passed.

[@aikighost]

Yes, the main reason large grey areas are so widely written into modern laws is precisely so government agencies can overreach and do immoral things and then when caught say "well the legal guidelines don't deny this type of use". Its fascism pretending to be concerned, reasonable and fluffy.

[@BellEnded]

It seems that individuals guilty of child exploitation face minimal consequences, often receiving just a warning or, at most, a six-month prison sentence. Yet, those who voice opinions against the government or offend someone might face even harsher penalties. Why doesn't the government take more decisive action against child exploiters from the outset? Is the true intent behind this bill not to protect children?

[@x3rs3s]

The minister looks out of depth 🤣 He's red in the face. The government has asked to break encryption. Now they are using clever words to confuse the public.

[@joshuaking2171]

The Tories want to rid of free speech

[@665libertine]

Disappointed that the host allowed the debate to move away from the whole point off the interview. Meredith did great.

[@haxstir]

The analogy is simple. Would you agree for every Royal Mail letter and parcel to be opened by mass surveillance teams working for the government or foreign governments? We would say that's an outrage and an invasion of privacy that's unacceptable.

[@DissociatedWomenIncorporated]

All the actual criminals will do is switch to Tor or USB sticks in the post or something. This bill won’t prevent any abuse, it’ll just be used as an excuse for mass surveillance of the innocent.

[@bigduke2140]

Everyone knows this, the people who want have vested interests, money or power. Everyone knows it is to spy on the innocent.

[@aikighost]

Which is of course its true purpose, child safety is 100% a smokescreen.

[@DissociatedWomenIncorporated]

@@aikighost exactly, child safety and combatting terrorism, a great smokescreen to implement mass surveillance. And I can’t even just blame the Tories, because it was Gordon Brown’s Labour government that first started pushing for this (they also wanted biometric ID cards that it would have been a criminal offence to not carry with you AT ALL TIMES).

[@slendii366]

By that metric it’s gonna make it even harder to enforce such laws.

[@hazyhayley7488]

Riot if passed.

[@PetaloudesTouYialou]

Tl;dr: the Tories can’t be arsed do proper policing and would rather have a STASI.

[@asldfjkalsdfjasdf]

This is like making landlords responsible responsible for the crime of their tenants and making it mandatory to install surveillance in every room. Or like the German government asking to listen to every private conversation in every home. It will be misused. Just a matter of time.

[@nezzee]

What he is saying "if you can't ensure that your TOS is being followed, then you can't exist", which is a round about way of saying "if you don't put in a back door to monitor content and then report back to us, you can't exist". They are deflecting the point that they themselves aren't asking for a back door for the police, but are asking for signal to willingly put in a back door to monitor content of it's users, or close up shop. Yeah... That's not how encrypted messaging works chief... If anyone can view my content, then it's not end to end encrypted... Plain as that...

[@ChangesOneTim]

Equally therefore, Meredith Whittaker is implying, if not openly stating, that every encrypted messaging provider's TOS are only a nice-to-have: Providers can make TOS as strict as they wish, while fully aware that a [sizeable] minority of their users has no intention of complying with them because they will never get caught! How is that acceptable ethically, never mind legally?

[@aleverettes2789]

50/60-yr old politicians talking about tech at its finest

[@マウリツィオ-g6e]

I'm also in that age bracket, but I'm not a moron in bad faith... 🤪

[@ragnarok8952]

typical politician knowing absolutely nothing about what they are talking about.

[@tjmarx]

This is a really simple equation. You either allow E2E encryption and understand that in allowing genuine E2E, no one not even the service provider can know what's being sent. That service provides of such products can't meaningfully enforce their terms of service which ultimately exist only to cover the organisation offering the product from legal culpability. OR we can say E2E isn't something we want and actually we want communications providers to spy on behalf of government on the off chance someone sends CP. Of course whilst they're spying for CP they'll also have a legal obligation to report any other crimes they happen to become aware of. Those are the choices. They're the only choices. If you want your communications to be actually private, then you have to accept that the communications of criminals will likewise be just as private. It is then law enforcements duty to do their jobs instead of asking private companies to hand them cases on a silver platter.

[@tjmarx]

@dondoodat Pretty sure royal mail already do that, and thanks the the 5 eyes prism/keystone program so do the phone companies with every call and sms.

[@tjmarx]

​@dondoodatUntrue. I know several senior members of royal mail, including one I'm related to. The main is scanned for it's contents. They can not physically open the mail without a court order, but how do you think they get one in the first place? They scan the contents with different sensors and anything that flags gets investigated by a human. Anything still suspicious can then have a warrant application applied. The snowden leaks told us that the decades long running prism and keystone programs which have continued under new names are mass surveillance programs undertaken by 5 eyes countries on their own populations and include the gathering and mass telephony surveillance, including meta data, contents and gps coordinates matched to identifying profiles. The UK is the lead 5 eyes country. Australia, another 5 eyes country already has these mandatory backdoors requirements for E2E IM, which includes signal. Indeed the Australian government via the AFP are a funding source for signal. So the fact of the matter is that signal is already compromised, a fact Meredith slips up on at 8:25 when under pressure. To investigate an account you need to break E2E. She has disclosed that signal have already done so and that's further disclosed in Australia with signals submission to ACMA. That's not really the point however, and I think we both agree on the fundamental importance of E2EE as a last bastion of private communications. You are right that the proposal is like bugging everyone's phone or checking every piece of mail. My point is simply that they already do those things which is why they think it's ok to do this to E2EE and why it's so important that they don't. If E2EE is gone then that's it, game completely over on privacy, democracy over too because authoritarianism inevitably follows. Amendment 205 is a sensible amendment.

[@ChangesOneTim]

@dondoodat No.

[@ChangesOneTim]

@@tjmarx Fair comment re Australia, I wasn't aware of what already happens there. The central issue is the dichotomy of E2EE without any 'back door' on one hand, and (un)enforceability of E2EE service providers' TOS on the other. Short of the State hoping and praying hope and prayer that it can bring E2EE misusers to justice by some other crime detection method, the battle if not the war has already been lost no matter what the Online Safety Act eventually says.

[@tjmarx]

@@ChangesOneTim The enforceability of a private companies terms of service (a private contract between a user and said company)is not now, nor has it ever been the central issue of any law, regulation, act or government concern. Whether E2EE is involve or not is entirely irrelevant. These are private parties making an agreement between themselves. It is in effect legally no different than you making an agreement with your kids that if they don't clean up their rooms there won't be pudding after dinner, and then the government arguing they have to start assigning government workers to follow you around and watch your every move, otherwise how will they know if you kept your word to your kids. That's not government concerned with private entities enforcing their agreements, it's government overreach into removing civil liberties and damaging democracy. This is government trying to spy on us to better control the population and telling us it's for our own good. Democracy dies when freedom of speech does, and how can you ever have freedom of speech if big brother is always listening? It's always very telling of the intent of a law when politicians claim it has to do with stopping CP. Politicians ONLY ever stand up and start making arguments about CP and "won't someone think of the children " when they have a bill that would erode civil liberties and strip rights. Listen, to spread a thing one inevitably needs to expose themselves publicly. Heck, there's been tons of t openly here on KZbin for years and despite thousands of complaints to authorities it remains. If government really wanted to clean up CP it could without changing any laws. The fact of the matter is those dealing in CP are often themselves politically connected. You'd need more than two hands to count the number of politically connected individuals posthumously exposed as kiddie fiddlers in the UK in recent years. It's never about cleaning up CP, it's only about trying to silence critics because who would ever stand up and say they don't want to help exploited children? The vast majority of companies, of all sizes and not just tech companies, have boiler plate clauses in their terms of service which they either have no means to enforce or no intention of ever doing so. Such clauses exist only to mitigate legal liabilities. In the case of signal they don't even have an enforcement issue because their terms of service only claims that you must not do xyz and there is never talk of penalties or enforcement. It's just legalise to shift liability from signal solely to the user. There is no "back door" in encryption. You either have an encrypted service or you don't. If one outside entity can decrypt, all can. That's the entire point of E2EE, to ensure only those parties involved can decrypt. So, we either want privacy from government or we don't. It's binary and there is no dichotomy.

[@ollymeg]

"once the bill becomes law"!! So it sounds like they are going to force it through then

[@justinstephenson9360]

A truly awful interview by C4, not a surprise because as usual the interviewer was completely ignorant of key issues around the bill. Why did the interviewer not ask the obvious question to Collins, will the legislation require messaging apps to pre-scan messages before they are sent? Technically that does not break encryption but it also opens up a massive back door to hackers (which may be govt. employees) - if they hack into the pre-scanning app they get access to everything you send thereafter, not just child sexual abuse material. I do hope Signal, WhatsApp and crucially Apple follow through on their threats and if this bill is passed in its current format, they all withdraw messaging services from the UK - although for many simply using a VPN to change your perceived location might get the service back

[@brehdem]

Everything Meredith said is absolutely correct, the harsh truth is you either protect everyone or no one. The fact the bill doesn't explicitly mention breaking encryption shouldn't be allowed as a caveat is done intentionally to create a grey area and help this bill get passed because the politicians can say this bill isn't here to make encryption weaker even if that's what it leads to and that's the whole point. This guy asks how they enforce T&Cs but the conversation is way bigger than that. Privacy is a fundamental right and in our current society where we rely on tech so much we absolutely need to protect it and create laws that make weakening it in any form illegal.

[@dilibau]

The equation is simple: either your communications are encrypted and safe or they are not. There’s nothing in between as the laws of encryption cannot be fudged. Govt apparently is blissfully unware of this…

[@LA-ic2op]

Oh, i think that many/all govts are very aware that if they get this precedent through in the UK, they can all try to implement their own version and hence more of Censorship Industrial Complex. Just like 9/11 was used to implement surveillance of all citizen's emails, SMS and calls, this is the next step to total surveillance.....and censorship..

[@haxstir]

No, they're aware alright.

[@lupo10]

It’s truly frightening.

[@korewatori]

Love (sarcastically) how the host kept bringing up WhatsApp and Apple in the context of other businesses that are threatening to pull out, but Signal's business in all this is entirely different. It is the only good company that offer this sort of thing. Truly transparent and open source, not to mention non profit too. Whatsapp and Apple are closed source proprietary spyware. This interview or debate was conducted terribly. Meridith was stunning, the others had no clue what they were talking about.

[@Mark1024MAK]

So, are the government going to bring in a similar law making postal delivery companies go through your parcels, post and letters in case you are sending or receiving illegal images (either physical pictures or SD cards/USB memory sticks)?

[@PetaloudesTouYialou]

How about we start with believing victims, supporting victims and doing proper, thorough, well funded policing.

[@froggydoggy8758]

Jimmy Saville was at it for decades and everyone knew - it’s not about knowing it’s about who you are - 1984 is upon us!!

[@LA-ic2op]

His funders in the Censorship Industrial Complex and the bureaucrats who'll administer this will reward him very well if he can get this through.

[@wss.aeriii]

#STOPKOSA

[@halflifeproductionz]

Meredith did a great job debating these 2 clowns, however who do they monitor 'controversial' accounts on signal?

[@k00lkane]

Well done Meredith.

[@TheSonneyOfficial]

It's not about child abuse content. It's about American tech companies harvesting information of British people (High amounts of disposable income), and not being obligated to be transparent about their algorithms and intentions that manipulate British service users, due to being outside of the physical territory of the UK. The speel about child abuse content is just shock words to stun people who wouldn't care about this issue, to care about this issue. Directly pointing the finger at the US and demanding them to hold their companies accountable and to stop treating British civilians as cattle, would cause knock on effects to international relations between these two (English speaking) nations.

[@MrYossarianuk]

Just because a law is not thought out, will damage society and is unworkable will never prevent a government passing them - just look at the law on cannabis

[@timgilligan3885]

That man does not know what he's talking about.

[@cajal6]

This politician and journalist were terrible. So sleazy trying to redirect the conversation to Signal’s terms of service for the first several minutes.

[@marcusatruthseeker9740]

No! They will abuse it!

[@nedbushcrafter7185]

I dont beleive a word off this government

[@slipperydouglas8263]

Tory mps you expect to be awful but that journalist wasn’t much better

[@maxdowney3717]

Likely a propaganda agent for the government, that's what most corporate MSM 'journalists' are these days sadly.

[@thehorsebackheroine5950]

Keep going Meredith 💪

[@curiositycloset2359]

The laughability of the media, and politicians, saying they are concerned about children lolololol

[@fashklash]

Ladies and gentlemen, the insufferable Kathy Newman...

[@solothebest1]

Judging from other crazy bills that have passed. This one will no doubt pass. Then it’ll become the norm for other countries to use that excuse

[@pedrohammond6686]

The bill is absolutely bonkers, not only for encryption but also content filtering for children and adults far beyond the scope of illegal content. I read a section where it refers to filtering content it deems as misinformation, who decides what's misinformation!? I agree kids need protection online but this bill is ridiculous.

[@thedeadguy]

rumour is they're trying too make the internet a child safe internet by 2030. The adults are going to be absolutely bored. dumbing down the populus yet again. as soon as protecting yourself in agressive hilarious ways became community standards violations with each post, as i broke your imarginary safe space process.

[@Emc2-n2t]

Law by the back door. Clear sign they wish to use it for 'other means'

[@RocketRaccoon-g9v]

The only way that this would go is people would stop using the Internet

[@monham5041]

As usual with bills like this. They have great aims, but are almost always poorly written which leaves room for interpretstion and manipulation. Making them unusable and dangerous to the general public. Good for her for standing up for the rights of the public.

[@kingpooh6429]

There is no good intentions with the bill only ulterior motives

[@IrritatedBear]

Can’t wait for all social media to shutter in the UK after this bill. We live in a pariah state.

[@DavidWestwater-vq6qy]

Damien didn't look too comfortable

[@JimmySaul888]

The language in the bill contains purposely vague language essentially giving regulators carte Blanche to target whoever the want. China is getting jealous England. Your Orwellian repression is most impressive.

[@D.von.N]

We have reached the time where we need to decide on which chair we will sit: either have a truly private communication nobody can really monitor from outside, or you will have online safety and background monitoring of content. You cannot have it both ways at once. At most you can store all this communiation encrypted on some servers and in a case of crime un-encrypt particular part of it and examine for evidence. That would do, but not in the real time.

[@dillinger1991]

"Sitting down with a tech company and trying to get straight answers to simple questions is very difficult." This coming from a politician.

[@cavemant4842]

"Would you quit the UK willingly?" "No." "But unwillingly, you would?" Why does Cathy Newman even have a job? Hack-journalism at its finest!

[@disaffected_malcontent]

scrap the bill

[@emperorulerstar6857]

Freedom

[@mediterraneandiet2483]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’

[@joefortey4]

It might help the is someone explained to the Tories how encryption actually worked. They've broke everything else, may as well break the internet as a final leaving gift.

[@spaceprobe]

Is the post office now going to open everyone's mail to check whether or not peple are exchanging illegal pictures or saying dangerous things?

[@JigsWithoutWoodstock]

re: Encryption. CSEM could be sent via the postal service. Who's responsible for that? Royal Mail? Are we now going to start opening every single piece of mail in transit to make sure this isn't happening?

[@Redflowers9]

Based on how computer encryption works, this is like the police demanding to permanently break the locks on someone's house so they can perform a search. There are no other ways to do it, at least none have been talked about in this interview, and yet this guy wants to bulldoze on.

[@BrianMosleyUK]

This woman is super impressive. Hope the idiot politicians aren't able to push through this awful bill.

[@martinspeer262]

Of course it will. Big brother will definitely be watching you

[@latorregolf]

Nothing to do with protecting children. Meredith is right, if you're so concerned about children welfare where's the government money?

[@samshep70]

What a great speaker

[@bganonimouse2754]

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Brand. We don't need the help of accused sexual abusers / snake oil salesmen to provide a damning critique of the online safety bill. We have plenty of experts to refer to and we need to the media to continue pointing to this.

[@flinchus]

We have a boomer whom studied modern history, worked in advertising, elected as chair of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee and was re-elected unopposed following the 2017 general election of the newly renamed Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee...telling a woman whom founded Google Open Research and co-founded M-Lab that you can actively scan e2e encrypted messages without breaking encryption. The bill states that if the technology to do what he proposes doesn't exist then it should be developed. So the bill makers (politicians) basically ask for a backdoor hack to be developed which funnily enough would likely be used to blackmail...politicians.

[@oprrrah3498]

An appropriate quote: "Anyone who trades liberty for safety with have neither"

[@suziedimblad8769]

This guy is a creep who should have his private messages made public so we can protect ourselves from creeps

[@thomasmcd81]

"we regulate financial services globally....." bahahahahaha

[@Adamska_01]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, for ever.

[@tomquimby8669]

So what you are saying is we should follow the science and fall in line behind the governments over reach and this will help us to ensure that channel 4 can continue with it's propaganda function without any critical push back from the uk populace.

[@tomgosy]

The Royal Mail wouldn't open every parcel, letter and package for suspicious content that may or may not be there. Why should any other form of communication be any different?

[@fl570]

Love the weird, restrained half-glance between the two at the end, lol.

[@samtahmassebi163]

Government Joker. In Law absolute clarity is always required. He knows this from reading his mortgage agreement. Everything you can and cannot do is included for absolute clarity. Meredith is actually in the right here. The elephant in the room is clear but being hidden by a left-wing authoritarian perspective that Orwell spoke of in 1984. You privacy is sacred. Everyone's privacy is sacred. Much like with freedom of speech, to know it is still sacred and being kept sacred is to protect the privacy of bad actors.

[@faithvirtue6524]

Damian Collins is totalitarian

[@keigreencap9192]

She cross the line how dare she tell the Ugandan government how to govern their country