Dark day for online privacy in the UK.

  • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I guess I’m an old fuddy-duddy taking crazy pills because nothing in this seems bad to me. Hell, quite a few parents have had their kids commit suicide after viewing suicide content online, this would literally save lives. And the tech companies should take some responsibility for what’s on their platforms.

    • Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This seems like the digital equivalent of burning books. Rather than controlling what people can read, shouldn’t we be doing more about the underlying reasons that mental health has taken a dive, such as the cost of living, climate change, the cost of further education and, you know, giving people a reason to feel optimistic about the future?

      • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude, it’s social media sites being more responsible for what they host, Child Rape, suicide, animals being stomped to death. Like, you get that right?

        They still have their encrypted stuff, privacy is mostly intact, all this is doing is forcing the shitty stuff that’s being posted there to be more forcibly removed. Nobody is “burning your books” by holding Meta more responsible.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s one of those things where the intent is good, but the implementation will cause issues. Another risk is if the laws are abused under the guise of protection. At the same time, it’s an important issue to try and address.

      Encrypted messaging for example. It’s impossible to have secure and encrypted messaging while also scanning the contents for issues. The best you could do is local scanning, but that won’t be effective at all (it’ll block legitimate content and let through harmful stuff).

      If you get rid of encrypted messaging, that will make a lot of day to day work impossible, and it would harm those who need the protection of encrypted messages (ex. Journalists, whistleblowers, those under totalitarian/authorative governments)

      • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        This seems to be misinformation being spread around? I don’t live in the uk so I can only go by what I research on the internet, and it doesn’t seem to do anything to end end to end encryption. (That was fun to type!)

        There will still be apps and platforms you can use encrypted, social media included. They just want ways to access the encrypted information on harmful social media sites, as a way to enforce the safety standards, which makes perfect sense. It’s social media not the DoD.

        People can move over to signal or use actual apps meant for encryption. Facebook should 100% be able to see what is going on and being said on their platforms, you have no expectations of privacy there my guy. Same for all social media. It’s a publicly facing service so it needs to be guarded and monitored same as any other, and it’s well past time we started holding the platforms responsible.

        Maybe once they start facing fines for not only allowing but pushing through algorithms nothing but horrible and hateful content, they’ll do a better job of moderating their environments.

        • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The apps you’re talking about are the ones being targeted - encrypted chat apps. Those apps (including Signal, WhatsApp, iMessage, Session etc) have all said they’ll pull out of the UK market if this happens.

          • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You guys need to read the article then, you’re freaking out over nothing because those apps are not targeted in the law that’s been passed. They only left in the parts demanding social media take responsibility for what they platform.

              • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                The bill…imposes strict requirements on large social platforms to remove illegal content.

                Oh no!

                Additionally, the Online Safety Bill mandates new age-checking measures to prevent underage children from seeing harmful content.

                That’s awful!

                It also pushes large social media platforms to become more transparent about the dangers they pose to children, while also giving parents and kids the ability to report issues online. Potential penalties are also harsh: up to 10 percent of a company’s global annual revenue.

                Won’t somebody think of the corporations!

                the bill could also put encrypted messaging services, like WhatsApp, at risk. Under the terms of the bill, encrypted messaging apps would be obligated to check users’ messages for child sexual abuse material.

                Absolutely disgusting overreach!

                Signal president Meredith Whittaker, meanwhile, issued tentative praise for the ongoing conversation around the bill. “While it’s not everything we wanted, we are more optimistic than we were when we began engaging with the UK government. It matters that the government came out publicly, clearly acknowledging that there is no technology that can safely and privately scan everyone’s communications,” Whittaker said

                Now the president of signal is onboard for some reason?!? He must have been a privacy poser this whole time!

                …… yeah thanks for linking that article, it really cleared things up on the imminent danger policing the internet for the first time with consequences will hold for us all. Jesus Christ, there might be less death, violence, gore, csam, and hate on The Internet for once, absolutely appalling. /MASSIVEFUCKING-S

                • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Good job on purposefully misunderstanding absolutely everything there. Quite a feat of tortuous logic.

                  Why are you even posting in a privacy related community? Or are you new to the whole thing?

                  • Chaos@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    They may be the equivalent of arguing with a dude that drinks pee for fun. If he cannot understand the intracusy of what it means to truly lose privacy by looking at other controlling countries, he’s already lost.

                  • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Why are you even posting in a privacy related community?

                    Sorry for disrupting your echo chamber, I was browsing the Hot content when this aggregated up and tickled my fancy.

                    Got curious what the bill was actually about, not just what the hyperbole was saying, so I researched it myself and found the middle ground between the provocative takes and reached a grown up conclusion for myself.

                    I know that must be confusing for you, but here we are!

            • Otter@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I got that from the article though, it’s in the bit I quoted as well

              I’m not from the UK so I was using the articles

    • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was the original intent - that sole thing. Stop kids accessing harmful content. It’s now morphed into a legislative tool for mass surveillance.

      • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Citation from a non-biased source badly needed.

        *ends up linking an article that counters nearly everything he said was bad about this bill but then smugly continues on posting as if it didn’t

        Yeah you’re totally grounded in reality and not emotionally invested in this. Carry on, b.

          • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The bill…imposes strict requirements on large social platforms to remove illegal content.

            Oh no!

            Additionally, the Online Safety Bill mandates new age-checking measures to prevent underage children from seeing harmful content.

            That’s awful!

            It also pushes large social media platforms to become more transparent about the dangers they pose to children, while also giving parents and kids the ability to report issues online. Potential penalties are also harsh: up to 10 percent of a company’s global annual revenue.

            Won’t somebody think of the corporations!

            the bill could also put encrypted messaging services, like WhatsApp, at risk. Under the terms of the bill, encrypted messaging apps would be obligated to check users’ messages for child sexual abuse material.

            Absolutely disgusting overreach!

            Signal president Meredith Whittaker, meanwhile, issued tentative praise for the ongoing conversation around the bill. “While it’s not everything we wanted, we are more optimistic than we were when we began engaging with the UK government. It matters that the government came out publicly, clearly acknowledging that there is no technology that can safely and privately scan everyone’s communications,” Whittaker said

            Now the president of signal is onboard for some reason?!? They must have been a privacy poser this whole time!

            …… yeah thanks for linking that article, it really cleared things up on the imminent danger policing the internet for the first time with consequences will hold for us all. Jesus Christ, there might be less death, violence, gore, csam, and hate on The Internet for once, absolutely appalling. /MASSIVEFUCKING-S

    • orphiebaby@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t know anything about how technology or even communication works then.

      • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, that’s rich! You guys are like Reddit Jr with your hilariously ignorant takes! I could be a leader of the tech sector for all you know about me. Please, assume more.