Surveillance strategies in the UK and Israel often go global

  • atlas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    the feds are so pissed they can’t break encryption, which is essentially just math, are they gonna ban math?

    • ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Isn’t like building a basic encryption tool coding 101? I didn’t build one when I was learning to code, but I did have to make a caesar cipher scrambler/unscrambler with python years ago. I don’t have the code or remember how to do it, but does that make me a hostile actor now?

  • ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    Fuck this shit. The UK is not longer a free country. And fuck Israel even more for their damned work over the decades to make this possible.

      • Korkki@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        4 days ago

        What is the fundamental difference. Evil men and arrogant idiots might as well be the same thing.

        • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          56
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          focusing on the ‘they are idiots’ fallacy completely misdirects blame and disencourages deeper critical thought. they have a plan and we need one too.

          • Korkki@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            4 days ago

            the real misdirection is focusing on individuals and their blame. The real question is why does UK political system produces these people rule and how do they keep ruling.

            • hector@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              4 days ago

              Both parties were captured by the aristocracy/super rich, call them what you will, and they support a total surveillance of a population they obviously fear and want tools to persecute as they see fit. Starmer is a perfect example of this, he’s done more damage arguably than the tories did in over a decade. Their betrayal of the country will throw the elections to the far right too, that is the only protest vote against the status quo, and they will affix themselves in power and implement even worse privacy.

              A popular reform party would fix the problems but the aristocracy is too greedy and arrogant for that, thinking they can control a far right party or otherwise shut them out electorally indefinitely and continue to sell out the public to the rich, even as discontent is increasing and the plutocratic rot is visible on the surface and spread throughout the whole.

            • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              4 days ago

              sure, focusing on how dumb they are isn’t very condusive to discussing the intricacies of capitalism.

              seriously though, they do have a plan. we need to figure out ours.

    • minorkeys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      5 days ago

      They don’t care how it affects normal people’s lives or what we sacrifice to pay for their incompetent leadership.

    • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 days ago

      “Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.”

      or something like that…

  • youmaynotknow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    4 days ago

    What I see here is that the UK is a hostile entity towards humanity. So, fuck the UK government and all their parties. Since we’re here, fuck the French government as well, just in case.

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    130
    ·
    5 days ago

    No way this lasts or holds up to basic scrutiny. End to end encryption is a de-facto standard for so fucking much technology.

    Like fucking HTTPS.

    • Avatar of Vengeance@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      5 days ago

      Well if they commit to this, it will never affect “e2ee” options that collaborate with feds e.g. whatsapp, imessage. If you can kill Refaat Alareer with it rest assured you will be able to keep it in your phone anytime

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Yes, the trick is to outlaw it entirely then enforce the law selectively against those whom you find politically awkward.

  • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    5 days ago

    So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?

    Essentially everyone’s a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.

    • hector@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 days ago

      That is longstanding, the US and the UK both have been writing laws broadly enough for them to take down anyone for them, or at least charge, we all just trust it won’t be abused, but as we’ve seen with the uk and their bad faith terror designations, that trust is misplaced, and the mask is coming off society. They aren’t pretending anymore, and cynically think “democracy” such as it is, is already dead in all but name, it’s only the citizenry that doesn’t know it yet, and or is contesting it.

      • Lysergid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 days ago

        I don’t get it. E2ee is about encryption in transit not encryption at rest. TLS sounds exactly like e2ee

        • iglou@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          E2E is about the sender encrypting, and only the intended receiver decrypting, with nothing in the middle able to read the data.

          TLS is not designed for that, as the server you connect to is not necessarily the intended receiver, yet it can see everything.

          With E2E, you can send data to a server, which is not the intended receiver, and it won’t be able to read it.

          • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.

            If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.

            If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of “intended recipient”) then TLS is E2E encrypted.

            • iglou@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              The definition of E2EE has evolved since the concept surfaced. You seem to be stuck with the original meaning.

              TLS does not fit the modern definition.

              • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?

                If not, then the technically correct usage doesn’t matter which is a point I’ve made in another comment as well.

                And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?

        If not, then yes, TLS is “end to end” as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each “end” to each “end” is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.

  • ReallyCoolDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    So google, amazon and Microsoft are hostile actors.every cloud provider is an enemy of uk government. They have gardeners (at best) or lawyers ( most probably), which did their own research.before writing these abominations. At the same time, they want to give all medical datas in the NHS to palantir. This is the apoteosis of incompetence.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      So google, amazon and Microsoft are hostile actors

      Obviously not. They’re happy to give MI5 a backdoor into all their systems.

      This is the apoteosis of incompetence.

      The age old question - malicious or stupid.

  • Anna@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    4 days ago

    Yes end to end encryption is for hostile actors why don’t you send your nuclear launch codes in plain text.

  • LemmyBruceLeeMarvin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    4 days ago

    Gee why does the capitalist oligopoly fear communication they can’t monitor it’s not like they are doing anything wrong and have anything to fear from little old us

        • Etzello@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          At this point it feels like they’re being paid to make people vote for Reform who will then make great use of all the surveillance infrastructure that Labour and Tories have put in place

    • orioler25@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 days ago

      Shit-flinging desperation at the realization that they have failed to contain dissent via internet-based coordination. Elbit and the UK’s protection of property was defeated by persistent disruption thanks to the work by Palestine Action. Unlike previous forms of communication, the empire has had tremendous difficulty wrestling control away because the materiality of the internet is so dispersed, accessible, and impossible to restrict without dire economic and military consequences.