•

UK government to back down on controversial end-to-end encryption provisions in Online Safety Bill

https://techmonitor.ai/government-computing/online-safety-bill-uk-government-whatsapp-signal

The Online Safety Bill has faced criticism from Big Tech companies over privacy and security fears. Have ministers had a change of heart?

UK government to back down on controversial end-to-end encryption provisions in Online Safety Bill

Almost like it was a non-starter. Who could have possibly foreseen that?

29 comments

SMITHandWESSON

•

Lol, they think we can't see throught their "we need to destroy [insert any privacy right] to save the children" bullshit. Never mind the fact it was never about saving kids in the first place.

Alto

•

They know we can. They also know that they only need to get lucky once, while everyone else has to get lucky every time.

Where have I heard that one before?

DoucheBagMcSwag

•

Meanwhile in the US, we have our MAGAT senators saying out loud that KOSA will censor LGBTQ content on the internet.

Infernal_pizza

•

We can see through it but most people either can't or just don't care. Its barely talked about, I only ever see articles about this posted on here/Reddit, I never see or hear any discussion about it anywhere else, and there never seem to be any articles on the front page of BBC etc

Olap

•

Lol, zombie government

echodot

•

So if anyone reading this would like to be PM for a bit, please put your name in. You can't be any worse so you may as well.

Obi

•

I mean, I would, but the job security seems really bad for that role.

echodot

•

There is an office cat.

CrankyCarrot

•

Oh well, when you leave after 2 weeks you still get more money than most of the country for the rest of your life

snipvoid

•

Can I still have a go if I change my name to Jeremy Corbyn by deed poll first?

DrCake

•

I was amazed they still tried to get it through until now. This Sunak government has been criticised (rightly so) for getting nothing done.

Why make a big song and dance about something that experts and companies were saying was impossible, just to have to cancel it.

It highlights once again how truly useless and incompetent the tory party is at the minute.

bernieecclestoned

•

I think they just want the headlines for being seen doing something, they don't actually want to implement anything

Tesco

•

Sunak is absolutely obsessed with doing exactly that. You can tell he just craves the prestige of being Prime Minister but isn't actually interested in doing the job, it's embarrassing really.

SubArcticTundra

•

Same thing with the REUL bill

Dasnap

•

the government will reportedly confirm that communications regulator Ofcom will only require companies to introduce back-door access when a technology is developed that is capable of scanning networks in such a manner.

So never then?

Edit: This is a surprise as I was reading articles earlier today claiming that this was almost guaranteed to pass. It's another can kick like the age verification law.

echo64

•

any article claiming that was written by a moron, they've been trying and failing to do this for a decade. It's not the first attempt, it's not gonna be the last. It'll always fail

Tetsuo

•

If this always fails why do they keep trying ?

They will try again until people stop fighting it.

People shouldn't let their guard down...

echodot

•

It was never going to pass. Sure they may have tried to push it through but there are far too many people that they would need to get it past, and those people either understand how technology works or at least consult people who understand how technology works.

The Tories always trying to implement laws that are physically impossible. All the sodding time.

SubArcticTundra

•

Same with the REUL bill. I don't really understand why they propose them if they aren't realistic. Could it be to appease backbenchers?

jayandp

•

Could it be to appease backbenchers?

And constituents. While you'd think failing to pass something would damage the party's reputation, for hardcore members, the fact they tried to fight even a losing battle "for the cause," is seen as a plus.

"It's the other parties' fault for getting in the way of justice!"

echodot

•

"It's the other parties' fault for getting in the way of justice!"

That's been their go to defence for the last 13 years. It's never their fault, it's always someone else's. So now it is starting to ring somewhat hollow, even with there own voter base.

Besides it's never a good idea to be against human rights lawyers and charities, it's not a good look.

Talaraine

•

The language is still a warning sign and it looks like it's going to pass. Don't get me wrong, this is a victory but only a temporary one until they find a tech that works for them. Don't let down your guard and keep pressing the fight!

Robaque

•

Meaning a mandated backdoor making encryption not really encrypted? Following the Australian LibNat Coalition's footsteps I see.

Gazumi

•

The sole purpose of a representative is to be re-elected. They will say and do whatever will keep their followers beleiving and voting, or, what will get them personal wealtb & power.

linearchaos

•

Every gdamn time, they go to the mat the say ok not this time. One day, they'll say f'it were going to do it anyway and we'll have to protest....

Infernal_pizza

•

It feels like one of their goal is to prevent protesting at all. They've already passed laws making protesting more difficult, good luck trying to organise one at all a few years after this finally does pass and they're scanning everyones messages

uis

•

1917 is unlikely to repeat

SubArcticTundra

•

Thank goodness. I wonder how many such proposals there will be before one actually gets passed

wewbull

•

Headline is wrong. All they've said is that they won't persue it if "it's not technically feasible". The law will still go in the books, and that statement won't mean shit when it's taken to court.