> If users access WhatsApp through a web browser, the service can also collect information about websites visited before and after sending messages, Collins added.
Whoa, how would they do that? Or is that just a british MP not knowing what he's talking about?
And if it goes, the "terrorists and child sexual abusers" they're writing this bill to target move to Telegram. Then whatever other application allows them to speak in private. The rest of the electorate is left massively inconvenienced for zero gain. My guess is they spent many thousands of hours in civil servant time to achieve something of no use to anyone. The incompetency of this government honestly astounds me.
As the article says, this bill is not targeting whatsapp specifically. Any other e2e-encrypted chat app will have to leave the UK as well. (Which Telegram isn't, btw)
I read that in the article and meant to scratch Signal off the list but never did. Fixed now. The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team.
You mean people committing crimes will also commit a crime to commit those crimes? I never thought of that. Such clever criminals.
The above statement is absurd right? I'm legitimately asking because I feel as though I must be missing something. Maybe it will stop a few folks and that is the victory? I think the new entries learning that the technology is working might be more numerous than the people who get stopped. Pedos read news don't they?
This is the reason that the IRS asks you to declare your illegal income. It can be used as a tool to make catching crimes easier. If using encrypted communication is illegal then they can just ding all of the criminals for that, or their criminal activities are harder to operate because they need to hide existence of communication from law enforcement, not only the contents. If it is legal then they have to 1. identify who is doing other crimes 2. prove those crimes. So the more crimes that criminals need to perform to get their "valuable" crimes committed the more likely it is that they get caught for something.
I don't believe at all that the means justify the ends, and I think the ends in this case will be only a very minor bother for criminals. But there is some logic to this concept.
> The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team.
Totally agree. This is partly what makes me so frustrated with this sort of legislation, because the technical arguments and assumptions that they base a lot of their legislative discussions on don't seem to make any sense at all.
Eh, that’s kind of like saying banning guns is pointless because criminals will still get them. Banning tools is effective even if there are “easy” workarounds, but in this case it will end up hurting law abiding citizens more than protecting them.
They have to leave the UK if they're concerned about forking over 10% of their turnover as a penalty for failure to comply, but that means nothing if they're out of reach of UK courts, or a decentralized volunteer organization. Plenty of ways to offer end to end encrypted chats to UK users without having an office in Shoreditch.
I think the intention here is just to keep the undesirables from interacting with the general population.
Unfortunately, banning something from the App Store and the Google Play Store is enough to stop most people from using it. Wrongthinkers might move to Telegram, but they still need to use mainstream platforms to get new recruits.
If the terrorists and child sexual abusers move to Telegram or some other more underground app, the Online Safety Bill will have partly achieved its purpose: to make social media safer for normal people using mainstream social networks. Currently we rely on the content policy and moderation staff of big tech companies to censor the surprising amount of illegal content that is constantly posted on social media [1]. The UK government wants to assume more control over this process with new powers that are legally restricted to what is "necessary and proportionate." They don't expect this to inconvenience the rest of the electorate, they expect it to reduce crime and other online harms.
Deliberately vague, overreaching legislation which leaves enough ambiguity to let the government basically do whatever the hell they want.
The last bit of legislation they brought in with similar properties led - completely and utterly predictably - to the arresting of peaceful protestors who hadn't even started protesting yet [0]
It was insanely obvious ahead of time that that would happen. And it's insanely obvious ahead of time again what's going to happen with this new legislation too.
It makes me extremely angry how hostile the UK seems to be becoming to its own citizens as well as its overseas friends.
Not everyone in the UK wants to treat everyone like a criminal until proven innocent, nor treat all foreigners as suspicious and unwelcome. Not even a majority now, retrospectively, even wanted to leave the EU.
I increasingly do not recognise our government as one that is in any kind of alignment with my values as a UK citizen or even as just a decent human being.
Edit: And don't even get me started on the crazy rhetoric coming from the National Conservatism event [1]
It comes and goes in cycles, all the way back to America's attempts with key-escrow (the "clipper chip"), and more.
A few years pass, and somebody will say "But think of the children (abusers)", or "The terrorists can plot & plan, and we need to read their messages to stop that".
Out of curiosity and with zero background knowledge on what you have communicated here I have a question.
Was there a denial that there would be a problem from mainstream sources? If so, was the cat out of the bag moment followed by 'nuthin burger' from the same sources?
Mainstream news sources (at least the ones I follow, I'll admit a left-leaning bias there) were all shouting about how this was the inevitable conclusion of the legislation, to be countered by ministers appearing to say that no, of course it wouldn't be abused.
Regarding the previous legislation which led to the wrongful arrest of protestors, a number of human rights organisations issued warnings about it before it was passed.
For example:
> UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, called the Public Order Bill “deeply troubling legislation”, after it completed its passage through parliament on Wednesday.
> followed by 'nuthin burger' from the same sources? That's what seems to happen in Canada at least.
Didn't the government just suspend the constitution (that's a thing over there?) because of some peaceful, free-speech protected, protests in the capital and start arbitrary freezing protester's bank accounts?
> I increasingly do not recognise our government as one that is in any kind of alignment with my values as a UK citizen or even as just a decent human being.
every single political party in the UK is either for this law, or wants it strengthened. not only that, they're actively criticising the government for being too slow in adopting it.
Lib Dems: "However, does she accept that there are major gaps in this Bill? For instance, gaming is not covered. It is not clear whether things such as virtual reality and the metaverse are going to be covered."
https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/munira-wilson/bill/2...
I agree. I'm disappointed in particular by Labour's approach to this too.
Similarly they (Labour) are not taking a strong enough position on honestly recognising the state of Brexit because they don't want to alienate their potential pro-brexit voters, nor are they taking a strong stand on a number of other policies which I think they should be.
The conservatives have lurched so far right that I can't help but feel that Labour is having to move in that direction too just to have a fighting chance of winning the next election. But this makes them not an effective enough opposition at the moment. Their strategy is clearly working - see uptick in pro-brexit votes in recent local elections - but I'm not sure at what cost...
So overall, personally, I'm just extremely disillusioned with all political parties right now. We have to recognise that we brought this on ourselves, collectively - such is the nature of democracy - but that doesn't help alleviate my current sense of despair!
but i am surprised by the liberal democrats. i don't really understand why they keep calling themselves "liberal" when for the past years they have been anything but liberal.
> However, you should know that this [liberal democracy] has precisely nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats in the UK. The Liberal Democrats are so named because they're the result of a merger between the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. The best combination of the names was "Liberal Democrats." -- cpast
That's a meme in politics, the words in party names have nothing to do with the ideas they commonly represent. Names in this space just work according to the "laws" of marketing.
The term liberal is only a magnitude, it's not a vector. In common parlance, people understand it to mean social liberalism, i.e. a proponent of personal freedoms; but in most parties, it's much more likely to refer to economic liberalism, i.e. laissez-faire market policies.
That said, I don't know enough about the UK's political parties to know along what axis the Lib Dems consider themselves to be "liberal".
> I agree. I'm disappointed in particular by Labour's approach to this too.
why would you expect labour to be better?
they are more authoratitian than the Tories
they brought in the Identity Register, the Terrorism Act (90 day detention without charge), the RIP Act (forced decryption), attempted to remove the right to trial by jury and the defence of double jeopardy
>The conservatives have lurched so far right that I can't help but feel that Labour is having to move in that direction too just to have a fighting chance of winning the next election.
Oh no, political parties moving in response to the expressed will of the general public in a democracy. What an outrage! How dare a party in a democratic system change its policy to match voter preferences. Won't someone think of the people that know better??
> Oh no, political parties moving in response to the expressed will of the general public in a democracy.
Consider a very simple model of a two party system, expressing views on one left/right axis. Members of the population vote for the political party that is closest to their views on that axis. Political parties want to win as many votes as possible.
Under that model and those assumptions, if one party moves in a particular direction, the 'correct' behaviour for the other party is to move in that direction also to capture more votes, regardless of what the underlying 'will' of the general voting public is.
> Not even a majority now, retrospectively, even wanted to leave the EU.
There was a democratic vote in which a majority wanted to leave. Until such a vote is repeated, this is the current state of things. If there was a majority of people in the UK that wanted to join, there’s nothing stopping them from doing so, the EU would probably happily welcome the UK back, albeit on different terms.
You can hate your government all you want, but this is what the majority wanted and supposedly currently wants.
Meh it’s not that joining and leaving treaties is like having a picnic, while I agree with the democratic sentiment of your message I also think that it would be crazy to allow any majority dictate schizophrenic policies, the difference was under 4%, and it triggered a generational change, is that fair?
It's crazy that if I press ctrl-q my web browser warns me I'm closing so many windows/tabs, but there's no such "are you sure" when it comes to such a major irrevocable decision
Somehow this feels like that XKCD alt text[1] "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
If the best thing anyone can say in defense of Brexit is that it was "a democratic vote", that is an implicit concession that there is nothing else worth saying in its favour. There were 100 people on the bus, only 30 bothered to vote, 16 of those voted to drive the bus off a cliff and kill everyone, and now you are compelled to agree with that course of action because "it was a democratic vote"[2] and anything else would be anti-Democratic and therefore bad. It's pretty clear that there was a lot wrong with the vote (it was said to be non-binding then was treated as binding, for example, which may have affected how many people bothered to vote), and the media around it - claims made which have not panned out and the people who made the claims are not being held accountable for their misrepresentation, or the messaging around "control of borders" which (a) we already had, and (b) post-Brexit has more immigration not less, in fact record high levels[3], and etc.
The UK had 3 different votes on this (the original referendum + 2 elections after), the UK government promised to follow the referendum again and again, and having a poor policy is hardly 'killing everyone'. When push comes to shove, British Remainers simply lost the vote, and Corbyn screwed them over and over afterwards.
See? You have nothing better to say about it than "you simply lost, ha ha". You aren't even trying to argue that anything has improved. (Even Nigel Farage has given up trying to argue that anything has improved!)
You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch? Or the difference between a Democratic vote and having rules “pushed on us” by Europe’s votes? Or how people in London are closer to Calais than they are to Glasgow and do more trade to Europe but some how see it as us/them?)
(And you are even agreeing that we all got screwed over - but you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago who didn't get elected, rather than the Conservative government in power whose demonstrated behaviour is screwing the ordinary people over and over, decade after decade).
>See? You have nothing better to say about it than "you simply lost, ha ha"
Why would I argue about that? I'm not British. I don't make their decisions, and UK being/not-being in EU has zero effect on me. Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me. I kinda want my vote to not be entirely ignored if there's ever a popular referendum in my country (a non-zero possibility due to.. reasons, but the likely issues aren't related to the EU).
>You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch
The monarch has zero power.
>you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago
I did follow the news. There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris.
You're happy to join in trying to close down the thread by dumping on the losers, why would you stop at arguing about it?
> "Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me."
Unless it involves the monarchy? Or all the other non-democratically run things like the civil service, companies, charities, the courts, etc. which are organised with a single CEO/leader/judge/hierarchy giving orders top down instead of democratically voting. And why would it be "devaluing the democratic process" if the vote had been arranged to require a supermajority instead of a simple majority, for example?
> "The monarch has zero power."
The monarch has power in a self-fulfilling way because they are famous and people listen to what they say; the monarch is Head of the Church of England and has power that way. The Monarch controls enormous wealth - estimated close to half a billion for the monarch and 88 billion for the combined UK royal family and has power and influence that way. They have power through networking with powerful people and organisations such as heading up the Commonwealth of Nations or weekly secret and private meetings with the Prime Minister. Even on a day to day basis the monarch is outside the law when it comes to not needing a passport or driving license and "civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person" - are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you? That some people by birth have sovereign immunity to criminal procedings?
> "There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris."
Hang on, why aren't you blaming the "Tory rebels" for not voting for Corbyn, instead of blaming Corbyn? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for not stepping down, instead of blaming Corbyn for not stepping down? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for fucking things up, instead of blaming Corbyn for not saving the day?
>You're happy to join in trying to close down the thread by dumping on the losers, why would you stop at arguing about it?
Because a few of the arguments basically devolve to things that would affect me as explained above? I did get carried away...
>are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you?
Ultimately a democracy can contain single persons having a lot of unearned wealth and occasional meetings with the PM. If not, there are way bigger fish to fry (in the UK case: Murdoch for example). It would have been fine if the UK wanted a supermajority, but I wonder if membership was a politically survivable possibility if vote went the same way.
>Hang on, why aren't you blaming the...
I was describing the sequence of events. The Tories locked themselves into supporting Brexit once Cameron resigned, so the only possible alternative path came from the opposition. There were several opportunities to change course, but the opposition bungled it up over and over even when the had the votes. In my country, it's obvious that when parliament has the votes for an alternative coalition, your duty is to compromise to get the government out, not hold on for PM post.
Freedom and security exist in perpetual tension. This is why we need to take security breaches in stride, put them in perspective. Imagine giving up 5% growth because someone killed .000001% of your population! And yet, that's exactly what countries do. The histamine reaction to violence is many OOM worse than the violence.
If that's too politically charged, the same effect happens when there's a shark attack. Never mind it almost never happens, world-wide, and has negligible impact on the human population, but when an attack occurs suddenly there's an outcry to spend millions on patrols, shark hunts, whatever. Millions that could have been spent on much more pressing needs, like feeding malnourished kids or researching a Covid vaccine. And putting pressure on wildlife that is already under pressure. It's always a poor decision, but it plays to the voters.
That's what you get when you're the subject (not citizen - SUBJECT) of a crown that increasingly is disinterested in using its power to protect the people.
Much as I love to pile on the Conservatives, he isn't really bragging that he swam in raw sewage or saying "it did me no harm", he's saying that it's not a new problem in the UK.
What I would criticise him on is that a) the dream of the ratchet of progress making things better and better for future generations isn't working, b) it's backsliding, c) it's backsliding under his government's governance.
Maybe i got carried away amongst comments by NPs like 'stop eating tomatoes, eat turnips' and 'if you cant afford a cheese sandwitch, dont have a cheese sandwitch"
The Conservatives recognize that they are probably set to lose the next general election, so clearly had to speed up the timeline on implementing their facist policies while they've still got the time left in power. Saying that, it seems to be in favor for both parties, so who's to say what happens with this.
> I increasingly do not recognise our government as one that is in any kind of alignment with my values as a UK citizen or even as just a decent human being.
Why not simply vote with your feet and move to SV. There are a lot of Brits here, and a lot looking to move here. It's the only way it will change.
almost. You don't have privacy in either case. Case in the article is the company is sharing data with US agencies only.
The only government doing the right thing on this front is France. They contribute and host their own Matrix instance for government use.
If you see countries like India, Brasil, Nigeria... They pretty much replaced their telephone infrastructure with Whatsapp. Like it or not, the telephone infra gives law enforcement access to all metadata, in some cases without a warrant, and allow wiretap with a warrant. Whatsapp gives both these powers to US agencies and not local ones. And thats what the UK have a problem with.
Of course they don't, but if it's illegal then things get removed from app stores and the like, making it hard to actually install.
Obviously on Android there's sideloading, even on iOS to a lesser extent, but I think the idea is that if there's any technical hurdle required to overcome this limitation, then the bad people will be less likely to use the workarounds. Obviously some percentage of criminals will do these workarounds, and I suspect the lawmakers even know that, but I think the idea is that any percentage reduction of criminals being able hide stuff is positive.
To be 100% clear, I think this is a very bad proposal; I think E2E encryption is important and should be protected, not threatened, I'm just saying that the rationale isn't completely incompetent.
If the app is not illegal elsewhere then sideloading it is trivial. The UK can't force app stores in other countries to take down e2e communication apps.
"Sideloading" is the likely next target. "We have to protect our people from dangerous Russian hackers spying on people, so we will make sure only clean and safe applications from $CORPSTORE are used".
That means that custom Android roms should be banned. Oh and desktop PCs too, because you can "sideload" anything there. Banning sideloading is unrealistic.
You say that like it's a bad thing. We actually do protect our people from dangerous products (lead water pipes, asbestos insulation), dangerous medications (Thalidomide and friends), dangerous food additives, dangerous environmental toxins (Zoning regulations, environmental and industrial waste regulations), physical dangers (OHSA, hard hats, fencing, car and pedestrian infrastructure design). And from informational dangers (VBScript email attachments, et al). Why not from this also?
Government measures protecting country from attacks are fine as long as they don't erode individual liberties. When they do, the official rationale becomes suspicious.
Forbidding installing apps from non-official sources is obviously bad and I don't think most people want it.
Right of course, the same ministers that should have used the corporate systems for public discourse and instead did a load of dodgy deals on whatsapp on phones that they then 'lost' when asked for to gain evidence from.
The good thing about making this about WhatsApp is that UK MPs and most political hangers-on use WhatsApp *extensively*. If opponents point out that government scheming, speaker circuit bookings, fast-track lanes for government contracts, and the like will become more difficult, then maybe MPs will reconsider.
Unencrypted and on-the-public-record political party and government communications will worry MPs more than it worries "terrorists and paedos".
The UK government will never pass legislation to increase transparency to their own conduct (I doubt any government would), so encryption and opacity will remain.
The whole set of overlapping classes of “freedom of information”, “open meeting”, and “sunshine”/“digital sunshine” laws are all laws adopted by various jurisdictions directed at the transparency of government operations and official conduct within certain bounds.
I still haven't accepted the "new" WhatsApp privacy policy. It's been over a year, and every time I open the app I just click the "X" to close the prompt asking me to accept it. I'm wondering how long this can continue...
My interpretation from the article is they're not after e2ee they're after the unencryted end points. That'll be the technical measures they're after. Something like the ill-fated apple scanning all media before anything.
An excellent source of information on the motives of UK legislators for passing this legislation, other than the incompetence and malice hypothesised in the other comments, is this parliamentary research briefing from 2022 [1], which summarises the previous five years of consultation and links to a heap of previous white papers and critical responses.
The "news" is that on 17 April 2023, the heads of WhatsApp, Signal and other companies published an open letter questioning "the Government's stated intention to protect end-to-end encryption and respect the human right to privacy" [2], and on 27 April 2023, a member of the House of Lords said that "services such as WhatsApp will potentially leave the UK" [3] if the Bill is passed. The debate is actually pretty informed and a refreshing antidote to the cynicism about democracy expressed elsewhere, until you recall that the House of Lords is not that democratic.
94 comments
[ 49.1 ms ] story [ 851 ms ] threadWhoa, how would they do that? Or is that just a british MP not knowing what he's talking about?
[0]: https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~dstefan/pubs/smith:2018:browser.pdf
The above statement is absurd right? I'm legitimately asking because I feel as though I must be missing something. Maybe it will stop a few folks and that is the victory? I think the new entries learning that the technology is working might be more numerous than the people who get stopped. Pedos read news don't they?
I don't believe at all that the means justify the ends, and I think the ends in this case will be only a very minor bother for criminals. But there is some logic to this concept.
Totally agree. This is partly what makes me so frustrated with this sort of legislation, because the technical arguments and assumptions that they base a lot of their legislative discussions on don't seem to make any sense at all.
Unfortunately, banning something from the App Store and the Google Play Store is enough to stop most people from using it. Wrongthinkers might move to Telegram, but they still need to use mainstream platforms to get new recruits.
[1]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
The last bit of legislation they brought in with similar properties led - completely and utterly predictably - to the arresting of peaceful protestors who hadn't even started protesting yet [0]
It was insanely obvious ahead of time that that would happen. And it's insanely obvious ahead of time again what's going to happen with this new legislation too.
It makes me extremely angry how hostile the UK seems to be becoming to its own citizens as well as its overseas friends.
Not everyone in the UK wants to treat everyone like a criminal until proven innocent, nor treat all foreigners as suspicious and unwelcome. Not even a majority now, retrospectively, even wanted to leave the EU.
I increasingly do not recognise our government as one that is in any kind of alignment with my values as a UK citizen or even as just a decent human being.
Edit: And don't even get me started on the crazy rhetoric coming from the National Conservatism event [1]
</rant>
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/16/terms-linke...
A few years pass, and somebody will say "But think of the children (abusers)", or "The terrorists can plot & plan, and we need to read their messages to stop that".
Was there a denial that there would be a problem from mainstream sources? If so, was the cat out of the bag moment followed by 'nuthin burger' from the same sources?
That's what seems to happen in Canada at least.
For example:
> UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, called the Public Order Bill “deeply troubling legislation”, after it completed its passage through parliament on Wednesday.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/04/1136107
In fact, the UK category of the UN news feed makes for pretty embarassing reading in general, speaking as a Brit:
https://news.un.org/en/tags/united-kingdom
Didn't the government just suspend the constitution (that's a thing over there?) because of some peaceful, free-speech protected, protests in the capital and start arbitrary freezing protester's bank accounts?
every single political party in the UK is either for this law, or wants it strengthened. not only that, they're actively criticising the government for being too slow in adopting it.
and in a recent poll a majority want online speech to be regulated: https://inews.co.uk/news/online-safety-freedom-from-abuse-mo...
Labour pledges to toughen ‘weakened and gutted’ online safety bill https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pl...
Lib Dems: "However, does she accept that there are major gaps in this Bill? For instance, gaming is not covered. It is not clear whether things such as virtual reality and the metaverse are going to be covered." https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/munira-wilson/bill/2...
Cross-party support: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/15/online-safety-bi...
Similarly they (Labour) are not taking a strong enough position on honestly recognising the state of Brexit because they don't want to alienate their potential pro-brexit voters, nor are they taking a strong stand on a number of other policies which I think they should be.
The conservatives have lurched so far right that I can't help but feel that Labour is having to move in that direction too just to have a fighting chance of winning the next election. But this makes them not an effective enough opposition at the moment. Their strategy is clearly working - see uptick in pro-brexit votes in recent local elections - but I'm not sure at what cost...
So overall, personally, I'm just extremely disillusioned with all political parties right now. We have to recognise that we brought this on ourselves, collectively - such is the nature of democracy - but that doesn't help alleviate my current sense of despair!
but i am surprised by the liberal democrats. i don't really understand why they keep calling themselves "liberal" when for the past years they have been anything but liberal.
https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/7812
That said, I don't know enough about the UK's political parties to know along what axis the Lib Dems consider themselves to be "liberal".
why would you expect labour to be better?
they are more authoratitian than the Tories
they brought in the Identity Register, the Terrorism Act (90 day detention without charge), the RIP Act (forced decryption), attempted to remove the right to trial by jury and the defence of double jeopardy
along with countless more
Oh no, political parties moving in response to the expressed will of the general public in a democracy. What an outrage! How dare a party in a democratic system change its policy to match voter preferences. Won't someone think of the people that know better??
Consider a very simple model of a two party system, expressing views on one left/right axis. Members of the population vote for the political party that is closest to their views on that axis. Political parties want to win as many votes as possible.
Under that model and those assumptions, if one party moves in a particular direction, the 'correct' behaviour for the other party is to move in that direction also to capture more votes, regardless of what the underlying 'will' of the general voting public is.
They dont care about the people, they are simply occupying the political ground that has been abandoned by the other party.
The SNP motioned to have it repealed, they are still, sadly, a party in the UK.
There was a democratic vote in which a majority wanted to leave. Until such a vote is repeated, this is the current state of things. If there was a majority of people in the UK that wanted to join, there’s nothing stopping them from doing so, the EU would probably happily welcome the UK back, albeit on different terms.
You can hate your government all you want, but this is what the majority wanted and supposedly currently wants.
Putting something like that to a vote was itself insane and stupid.
Somehow this feels like that XKCD alt text[1] "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
If the best thing anyone can say in defense of Brexit is that it was "a democratic vote", that is an implicit concession that there is nothing else worth saying in its favour. There were 100 people on the bus, only 30 bothered to vote, 16 of those voted to drive the bus off a cliff and kill everyone, and now you are compelled to agree with that course of action because "it was a democratic vote"[2] and anything else would be anti-Democratic and therefore bad. It's pretty clear that there was a lot wrong with the vote (it was said to be non-binding then was treated as binding, for example, which may have affected how many people bothered to vote), and the media around it - claims made which have not panned out and the people who made the claims are not being held accountable for their misrepresentation, or the messaging around "control of borders" which (a) we already had, and (b) post-Brexit has more immigration not less, in fact record high levels[3], and etc.
[1] https://xkcd.com/1357/
[2] see also https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-... where internet communities drive the bus off the cliff and die due to fear of being called "intolerant".
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63743259
You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch? Or the difference between a Democratic vote and having rules “pushed on us” by Europe’s votes? Or how people in London are closer to Calais than they are to Glasgow and do more trade to Europe but some how see it as us/them?)
(And you are even agreeing that we all got screwed over - but you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago who didn't get elected, rather than the Conservative government in power whose demonstrated behaviour is screwing the ordinary people over and over, decade after decade).
Why would I argue about that? I'm not British. I don't make their decisions, and UK being/not-being in EU has zero effect on me. Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me. I kinda want my vote to not be entirely ignored if there's ever a popular referendum in my country (a non-zero possibility due to.. reasons, but the likely issues aren't related to the EU).
>You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch
The monarch has zero power.
>you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago
I did follow the news. There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris.
You're happy to join in trying to close down the thread by dumping on the losers, why would you stop at arguing about it?
> "Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me."
Unless it involves the monarchy? Or all the other non-democratically run things like the civil service, companies, charities, the courts, etc. which are organised with a single CEO/leader/judge/hierarchy giving orders top down instead of democratically voting. And why would it be "devaluing the democratic process" if the vote had been arranged to require a supermajority instead of a simple majority, for example?
> "The monarch has zero power."
The monarch has power in a self-fulfilling way because they are famous and people listen to what they say; the monarch is Head of the Church of England and has power that way. The Monarch controls enormous wealth - estimated close to half a billion for the monarch and 88 billion for the combined UK royal family and has power and influence that way. They have power through networking with powerful people and organisations such as heading up the Commonwealth of Nations or weekly secret and private meetings with the Prime Minister. Even on a day to day basis the monarch is outside the law when it comes to not needing a passport or driving license and "civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person" - are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you? That some people by birth have sovereign immunity to criminal procedings?
> "There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris."
Hang on, why aren't you blaming the "Tory rebels" for not voting for Corbyn, instead of blaming Corbyn? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for not stepping down, instead of blaming Corbyn for not stepping down? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for fucking things up, instead of blaming Corbyn for not saving the day?
Because a few of the arguments basically devolve to things that would affect me as explained above? I did get carried away...
>are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you?
Ultimately a democracy can contain single persons having a lot of unearned wealth and occasional meetings with the PM. If not, there are way bigger fish to fry (in the UK case: Murdoch for example). It would have been fine if the UK wanted a supermajority, but I wonder if membership was a politically survivable possibility if vote went the same way.
>Hang on, why aren't you blaming the...
I was describing the sequence of events. The Tories locked themselves into supporting Brexit once Cameron resigned, so the only possible alternative path came from the opposition. There were several opportunities to change course, but the opposition bungled it up over and over even when the had the votes. In my country, it's obvious that when parliament has the votes for an alternative coalition, your duty is to compromise to get the government out, not hold on for PM post.
If that's too politically charged, the same effect happens when there's a shark attack. Never mind it almost never happens, world-wide, and has negligible impact on the human population, but when an attack occurs suddenly there's an outcry to spend millions on patrols, shark hunts, whatever. Millions that could have been spent on much more pressing needs, like feeding malnourished kids or researching a Covid vaccine. And putting pressure on wildlife that is already under pressure. It's always a poor decision, but it plays to the voters.
Who can read this riddle?
Lile I get when people are racist, i get when they immigrants, but now we ahve MPs bragging that they swam in Sewage. How does that happen???
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65615711
What I would criticise him on is that a) the dream of the ratchet of progress making things better and better for future generations isn't working, b) it's backsliding, c) it's backsliding under his government's governance.
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
>There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.=
> Eschew flamebait. [...]. Omit internet tropes.
King: It goes well!, We're winning!
Peasant: So why are we so poor?
King: You're losing
[some cartoon, long forgotten the source for it]
Why not simply vote with your feet and move to SV. There are a lot of Brits here, and a lot looking to move here. It's the only way it will change.
The only government doing the right thing on this front is France. They contribute and host their own Matrix instance for government use.
If you see countries like India, Brasil, Nigeria... They pretty much replaced their telephone infrastructure with Whatsapp. Like it or not, the telephone infra gives law enforcement access to all metadata, in some cases without a warrant, and allow wiretap with a warrant. Whatsapp gives both these powers to US agencies and not local ones. And thats what the UK have a problem with.
Source?
Obviously on Android there's sideloading, even on iOS to a lesser extent, but I think the idea is that if there's any technical hurdle required to overcome this limitation, then the bad people will be less likely to use the workarounds. Obviously some percentage of criminals will do these workarounds, and I suspect the lawmakers even know that, but I think the idea is that any percentage reduction of criminals being able hide stuff is positive.
To be 100% clear, I think this is a very bad proposal; I think E2E encryption is important and should be protected, not threatened, I'm just saying that the rationale isn't completely incompetent.
Repos like F-Droid will keep hosting them.
Forbidding installing apps from non-official sources is obviously bad and I don't think most people want it.
Unencrypted and on-the-public-record political party and government communications will worry MPs more than it worries "terrorists and paedos".
Lots of governments do.
The "news" is that on 17 April 2023, the heads of WhatsApp, Signal and other companies published an open letter questioning "the Government's stated intention to protect end-to-end encryption and respect the human right to privacy" [2], and on 27 April 2023, a member of the House of Lords said that "services such as WhatsApp will potentially leave the UK" [3] if the Bill is passed. The debate is actually pretty informed and a refreshing antidote to the cynicism about democracy expressed elsewhere, until you recall that the House of Lords is not that democratic.
[1]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
[2]: https://blog.whatsapp.com/an-open-letter
[3]: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-04-27/debates/AC7C7...