The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet, and it'd be impossible to impose any without the kind of extreme restrictions of a totalitarian regime.
Any measures without broad international cooperation will push vast number of people towards darker corners of the internet, which will not just end up completely undermining what they are trying to achieve, it will make the problems worse.
Meta alone have the power to make this law a miserable failure.
People will want to use WhatsApp, the government themselves use it extensively.
If meta refuses there is very little they can do. Facebook can continue to operate without a single person on the ground in UK. It might harm their business in some ways but it's definitely doable.
The government might be able to force/convince Apple and Google to take it out their app stores in the UK but such regional restrictions are easily bypassed and WhatsApp is popular enough to make people try it. So that would then normalise the practices such as side loading / jail breaking and avoiding regional restrictions. Cyber criminals would be rubbing their hands at the opportunities this creates and I am sure the peodos and terrorists this is meant to be stopping will jump at the chance to get in on the act.
Ever been to China? The internet certainly has borders and boundaries. Sometimes you can sneak across or get a visa, but individual nations make their own rules. Most people either follow them or remain unaware of them, and large multinational companies will typically follow local laws because they are juicy targets.
In the UK, companies which protest this law are threatening to leave the market. That would mean blocking UK users on their properties, not helping them find ways to break the law.
Or, when you say "no boarders," do you mean that the internet is not zoned for residential use? Sorry if I misunderstood.
If the UK implemented something like The Great Firewall of China, it would be a gigantic statement about the country's future ideological direction (arguably started and in line with Brexit), and may actually be enough to cause protests large enough to make a difference.
> That would mean blocking UK users on their properties, not helping them find ways to break the law.
That's a sad reflection of the tech industry. Too much "we can't make money from them" and too little spitefulness of the sovereignty of foreign governments.
I already block EU countries from my site. Wrote a gem called "GDPR safe" and it returns an http error code 457, if the IP address indicates an EU country.
Even with a totalitarian regime, they cannot stop the rest of the world from using encryption. People can pull their business entities out of the UK and they have no jurisdiction outside their borders.
If I create an E2E messaging app, I don't need to listen to the UK at all. The UK can't tell me what to do any more than China can. China can block my app if they want, but it's on them, not me, to block it. Same goes for the UK. They can set up a firewall too if they want. But I don't need to change my app if I don't set foot in the UK.
Yeah the UK doesn't have the clout of the US that does go after app creators in other countries all the time extraditing them to the US etc, or attempting to anyway.
They certainly can, if they wanted to - or they could block your app and exile you with minimum effort.
Telegram is half banned in Russia.
Of course this doesn't apply to the bad guys: they're already breaking the law, using E2E is a no-brainer for them.
The UK government can't ban math out of existence (even if it looks like they're trying very hard, judging from the quality of their education system) so there will always be encryption.
It's the same with guns: congratulations you've outlawed guns and now only criminals can use them.
>The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet, and it'd be impossible to impose any without the kind of extreme restrictions of a totalitarian regime.
Why would the latter stop them? They have no problem with these.
>Any measures without broad international cooperation
Don't worry, other governments are just as shitty and want the same BS.
>The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand ... impossible to impose
Yeah but it's never worried them much in the past. As a Brit I occasionally come across the effects of them requiring ISPs to block piracy sites. Something comes up saying "this site is blocked" so you click like one or two buttons to switch to a different connection or turn a VPN on (VeePN is good and free). I imagine their encryption ban will be similarly tricky to avoid. I think it's more about looking noble to the electors than actually achieving anything.
>The UK Government repeatedly fails to understand that there are no boarders on the internet
Don't know what universe or timeline you're from, but on this earth today, the internet definitely has borders.
That's why we have those EU cookie banners and GDPR consent forms, and why some of my favorite piracy websites are blocked by all ISPs in my country, or why I can't watch Top Gear on BBC's website because I'm not from the UK, or why Facebook had to remove some politically spicy content worldwide because the courts where I live forced them to, etc, etc.
Mainstream web companies have to conform to local laws in each country or they'll get fined or blocked. Sure, there's VPNs to circumvent that, but the days of the lawless and borderless internet are a thing of the past.
My choice of interpretation is that those aren't internet borders, they're copyright borders, commercial borders, layers on top of a borderless internet.
This argument tends to break down at The Great Firewall of China, however, due to its thoroughness.
Unfortunately, we see those EU cookie banners and GDPR forms even if we live and visit a non-EU web site from outside. It doesn't target only the people inside the EU. So for this particular case is has no borders.
The international network we used to know has been destroyed. It is fracturing into smaller regional networks with heavy filtering at the borders as countries seek to impose their little laws on it.
I'm glad I was able to experience the true internet while it lasted. Truly a wonder of this world.
The central problem with the UK is that they've never fully embraced, or taken the time to understand, an inherent, universal, unconditional right to freedom of speech by all of their citizens.
Kings respected it... when it was convenient.
And so the democracy they begat also only respects it... when it is convenient.
But freedom of speech when another permits it is no freedom at all, because the right's value increases precisely with its ability to stand up to other, more powerful interests' disagreement with speech.
I see no failure to understand. The UK is a pragmatic imperial power, not a collaborative cooperative peer. They built Empire upon the asymmetric application of technology. When time to surrender Empire, they did so. When time to build a Financial Empire, they did so. When the time comes to build an Internet Empire, I'm sure they will do that too, by applying whatever technology they have at hand.
Legislators, courts and bureaucrats (in this order) always fail to grasp such things. That's an idea erodes their jurisdiction and authority, and abhorrent to thee ethos.
No borders (from their POV), puts internet businesses above the law... which it sort of does. The global village happened, but global authority did not. There are no clean resolutions to some of these tensions.
They might even understand that but if they think that they'll get more votes by banning e2e encryption, they'll ban it. If people will sideload WhatsApp, they might not go after them. They'll keep the extra votes coming from "we care about the children" and lose very little votes for the small inconvenience of sideloading once.
By the way, does a sideloaded WhatsApp on Android still update from the Play store? And what will iPhone owners do?
I think a large majority of the "non technical" population would have no clue how to sideload apps, or even that it was possible, and that the more likely result of WhatsApp being withdrawn from the UK would be massive screaming from the public of such intensity and wrath that the government would be forced to backtrack.
> If meta refuses there is very little they can do. Facebook can continue to operate without a single person on the ground in UK
If it came to it, Whatsapp could be blocked at the network level. All the gov need to do is impose regulations that forbid ISPs and other infrastructure hosts to carry the traffic.
> such regional restrictions are easily bypassed and WhatsApp is popular enough to make people try it. So that would then normalise the practices such as side loading / jail breaking and avoiding regional restrictions.
If people would be doing this (using a VPN, for instance), they would know how to bypass those restrictions.
Breaking encryption is not good for anyone and won't solve absolutely any problems, except the "problem" of right to privacy.
I think it's dangerous to assume they fail to understand. These are smart people with good advisors. They just want to do it anyway. Which puts them in the category of evil.
Who would you rather be in the public eye, evil or stupid?
the opposition in the UK is accusing the government of dragging their feet over this law, and are pushing them to adopt it sooner. they are also criticising the government for watering it down.
various NGOs are also attacking the government for watering it down and not moving as fast as possible.
basically the whole political spectrum is not only for this law, but wants it strengthened even further. there are also calls from the public for the government to go even further.
this is why there is no real backlash against this law. everyone no only wants it, but wants it to go a lot further than what the government has proposed.
They really are not. The current crop of UK politicians of all stripes are thick as they come - intellectual lightweights who can bullshit their way through a media appearance thanks only to an abject lack of shame. No one can look at people like Mark François, Liz Truss or Dianne Abbott (just to take three) and think “ah, there’s someone playing dumb for the camera”!
Unfortunately, the current crop of journalists are largely ineffective if not broadly enabling if this kind of behaviour, and politics is not a field anyone not already independently wealthy can afford to be in (a junior developer in the Bay Area can easily make more than the Prime Minister) so it does not seem likely to self-correct.
It's not impossible. The pandemic showed that you don't need a Hitler or Stalin figure to be ruled with an iron fist. The oligarchy could just make the pro encryption people the new ivermectin.
Writing to your MP (don't use a template) would be more effective. I have yet to see a single one of those petitions that resulted in anything more than a brush off. Even much more popular ones.
Letters to MPs almost always result in a brush-off too but they do take notice of them at least. Very occasionally you do get a non-template response too.
I've written to my MP twice in my life (as you say, non-templated because otherwise it's as meaningless as sending them a photocopy) and got a detailed response twice. If you take the time, they generally do too. (Obvious caveat that this is a sample size of one person and two emails / letters...)
This is interesting- 6k signatures (and just the one (no duplicate) petition when searching seems very low. I suspect there isn’t a huge amount of knowledge in the Facebook-mass-share spheres that usually kick these petitions into the big numbers.
There’s still the option of appeal to the ECHR, but that’s more or less it - and there’s a quite strong push from the right to leave that as well.
This was absolutely an intended outcome for a lot of the figures responsible for the UK’s exit from the EU - European legislation/institutions were more or less the only real absolute check on the authoritarian tendencies of the British state, given the UK’s insane constitutional structures.
IIRC Secondary legislation can be challenged in the courts and this is hopefully where the fight will take place between the well-heeled cat 1 service companies and Uk.gov
Else companies will leave or simply ignore the legislation, e.g. Signal, and the law will quietly become impossible to enforce with a series of arbitrary decisions and fines taking place before the digital economy falls off a cliff.
> I thought the UK courts can't override Acts of Parliament, because the courts are subordinate to it
The UK Courts aren't subordinate to Parliament and can tell the UK government to "go back and think again". For example, the move to export immigrants to Rwanda.
the courts in the uk are in the business of interpreting the laws that parliament creates. as these laws are mostly very badly drafted, there is a lot of wiggle-room.
It’s not just the current government, the whole of Parliament including the various committees are eager to just go along with the intelligence and security agencies who tell them encryption is bad.
I hate our government but the media has a massive part to play in propping them up.
All the tech companies should stand together and be ready to block access to their services. Imagine if the UK was left without access to just WhatsApp, let alone iMessage etc. It's not irresponsible or unsafe, there's always SMS for which the govenment has full control over.
Also I don't think any of these companies should fear an competitors. Why? These services are so ingrained a few weeks if not months of protest will not change anything. When the govnement finally succumbs restoration will be easy and the numbers will go back to normal quickly.
I watched an interview with David Yelland, former editor of the Sun, recently where he said that the news media in the UK is more or less run by the same minority class of people who typically work as spads[1]. That would follow your point that the media props them up, because it is a homogenous and tight knit community now between media and politics.
Agree - a UK without WhatsApp would be a UK in revolt. Literally everyone I know from teens to oldies organises their lives on it. Lack of WhatsApp would be enough to drag our sorry apathetic lazy non-protesting arses out onto the street
It absolutely wouldn’t. Just because we use a lot of something doesn’t mean we care about it. We are extremely politically apathetic.
You need targeted messages on social media and savvy campaigns to get people irate. Eg “campaigners stopping a pregnant mother getting to hospital”. That’s what gets people foaming at the mouth. Even then that’s usually just limited to angry replies on social media
There could be public executions of children caught for stealing candies and nobody would go protest in the UK. There's nobody with less backbone than the Brits.
Suppose WhatsApp added an insecure mode, required UK users to use it, marked it prominently as "inspected by UK government and law enforcement" and refused to allow UK users to communicate with non-UK users by popping up a nag screen every time they tried.
I agree and platforms explaining why access has been blocked. It needs to be politicised perhaps EFF can get involved with a page explaining it and steps for action (emailing MPs, those that voted for it etc). We are supposed to be a democracy after all right?
This govenment is nutorious for it's u-turns. I would be happy to see another in this case.
FB, Apple and Microsoft need to start this campaign ASAP.
This is uber stupid, because it will create way more divided internet (all countries will start separating further) and will create loss of trust in western/UK/US products (why would rest of the world continue to use iPhone/MacBook, google, Amazon, etc,..) therefore it will have huge cost in terms of lost revenue to all big companies. On the other hand there are smarter ways to do what is needed that respect privacy and do not cause such unnecessary economic harm to companies, but hey we'd need to have smart people in the governments (which are full of not smart people). Another aspect is that this will be unenforceable for huge majority of individuals since there will be plenty of solutions that will circumvent this, plus then number of companies will start forming companies in non affected geo's (off shore etc) and provide for example alternative to Viber/Skype/google/etc.. (some already exist).
At the same time as this is going on the UK is rolling out fibre to every home. I know of multiple people who live in the deepest darkest rural country lanes who are seeing 36x fibre COF215 drop cables strung up through the trees or trenched by the muddy roads. EE pioneered LTE cat16 at the end of the last decade in first and second tier cities right in time for iPhoneX to ship with support for gigabit traffic. It’ll be available in a field near you soon. There’s about to be an abundance of low latency bandwidth available to everyone.
With all that connectivity you can start being much more creative about who provides your transport versus who provides your IP connectivity. VPNs are already becoming mainstream. Sounds like a positive way forward, right? The internet just routes around damage, heh, and laws that restrict what you can and can’t do can be “routed around” by terminating all your traffic in Dublin or Amsterdam.
The trouble is that as it becomes normal for British subjects to export their traffic overseas then I can’t see HM Government policy avenue going anywhere other than all out war on encryption. Again.
I run an encrypted XMPP server for about a dozen people. It's completely ephemeral in the sense that the server stores no messages. If you're offline, you miss them, kind of like IRC.
Will this apply to me? Do I need to ensure that no UK users are on my server?
I never anticipated this back when I set up the server. I thought that implementing strong security and privacy measures was a responsibility that I should take seriously.
I wouldn't be willing to run the server if I had to compromise people's privacy. If you don't have privacy, you might as well be on a mega-corp service.
They can still open a case against you and put out a warrant for your arrest, in the UK. Then you need to ensure that you never have a flight routed through there. Though I doubt that they would go to all this trouble for a small fry.
I see a few comments suggesting a change of government will help.
The previous Labour government (1997-2010) introduced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_...), which amongst other provisions includes key disclosure rules (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Ki...). The burden of proof in key disclosure is inverted (the accused must prove non-possession of the key or inability to decrypt), which was somewhat controversial amongst people who cared at the time (activation, i.e. actual use if RIPA III provisions, began in 2007).
I think Labour are on board with this, and the senior civil service (those at the top levels who work with ministers or close to those who do) don't change in the same way US administrations do. It might be the case that this bill runs out of time in the current parliament and is not picked up by the next government (this can happen even if the same political party holds office) but the idea will be back in some form one way or another and I suspect will make it into law.
Given Labour also have not committed to reverting the anti-protest laws that were brought in by Suella Braverman, and where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said along the lines of "now is not the time to review that" when a caller literally asked that question, I don't hold out much hope for them doing anything progressive in relation to this.
Readit News
Any measures without broad international cooperation will push vast number of people towards darker corners of the internet, which will not just end up completely undermining what they are trying to achieve, it will make the problems worse.
Meta alone have the power to make this law a miserable failure. People will want to use WhatsApp, the government themselves use it extensively. If meta refuses there is very little they can do. Facebook can continue to operate without a single person on the ground in UK. It might harm their business in some ways but it's definitely doable. The government might be able to force/convince Apple and Google to take it out their app stores in the UK but such regional restrictions are easily bypassed and WhatsApp is popular enough to make people try it. So that would then normalise the practices such as side loading / jail breaking and avoiding regional restrictions. Cyber criminals would be rubbing their hands at the opportunities this creates and I am sure the peodos and terrorists this is meant to be stopping will jump at the chance to get in on the act.
Apple has even threatened to withdraw their own systems from the UK rather than comply with this.
https://9to5mac.com/2023/07/20/apple-imessage-facetime-remov...
In the UK, companies which protest this law are threatening to leave the market. That would mean blocking UK users on their properties, not helping them find ways to break the law.
Or, when you say "no boarders," do you mean that the internet is not zoned for residential use? Sorry if I misunderstood.
Surely china would fall under that statement from OP's perspective.
That's a sad reflection of the tech industry. Too much "we can't make money from them" and too little spitefulness of the sovereignty of foreign governments.
If I create an E2E messaging app, I don't need to listen to the UK at all. The UK can't tell me what to do any more than China can. China can block my app if they want, but it's on them, not me, to block it. Same goes for the UK. They can set up a firewall too if they want. But I don't need to change my app if I don't set foot in the UK.
Deleted Comment
Telegram is half banned in Russia.
Of course this doesn't apply to the bad guys: they're already breaking the law, using E2E is a no-brainer for them.
The UK government can't ban math out of existence (even if it looks like they're trying very hard, judging from the quality of their education system) so there will always be encryption.
It's the same with guns: congratulations you've outlawed guns and now only criminals can use them.
Why would the latter stop them? They have no problem with these.
>Any measures without broad international cooperation
Don't worry, other governments are just as shitty and want the same BS.
Yeah but it's never worried them much in the past. As a Brit I occasionally come across the effects of them requiring ISPs to block piracy sites. Something comes up saying "this site is blocked" so you click like one or two buttons to switch to a different connection or turn a VPN on (VeePN is good and free). I imagine their encryption ban will be similarly tricky to avoid. I think it's more about looking noble to the electors than actually achieving anything.
Don't know what universe or timeline you're from, but on this earth today, the internet definitely has borders.
That's why we have those EU cookie banners and GDPR consent forms, and why some of my favorite piracy websites are blocked by all ISPs in my country, or why I can't watch Top Gear on BBC's website because I'm not from the UK, or why Facebook had to remove some politically spicy content worldwide because the courts where I live forced them to, etc, etc.
Mainstream web companies have to conform to local laws in each country or they'll get fined or blocked. Sure, there's VPNs to circumvent that, but the days of the lawless and borderless internet are a thing of the past.
This argument tends to break down at The Great Firewall of China, however, due to its thoroughness.
I'm glad I was able to experience the true internet while it lasted. Truly a wonder of this world.
... which is why they continue to come for encryption.
Kings respected it... when it was convenient.
And so the democracy they begat also only respects it... when it is convenient.
But freedom of speech when another permits it is no freedom at all, because the right's value increases precisely with its ability to stand up to other, more powerful interests' disagreement with speech.
No borders (from their POV), puts internet businesses above the law... which it sort of does. The global village happened, but global authority did not. There are no clean resolutions to some of these tensions.
By the way, does a sideloaded WhatsApp on Android still update from the Play store? And what will iPhone owners do?
If it came to it, Whatsapp could be blocked at the network level. All the gov need to do is impose regulations that forbid ISPs and other infrastructure hosts to carry the traffic.
Now you need to block VPNs, and the cat-and-mouse game gets in full action!
Also, at this point you've basically implemented the roots of a British version of The Great Firewall.
> such regional restrictions are easily bypassed and WhatsApp is popular enough to make people try it. So that would then normalise the practices such as side loading / jail breaking and avoiding regional restrictions.
If people would be doing this (using a VPN, for instance), they would know how to bypass those restrictions.
Breaking encryption is not good for anyone and won't solve absolutely any problems, except the "problem" of right to privacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
Who would you rather be in the public eye, evil or stupid?
some background here.
the opposition in the UK is accusing the government of dragging their feet over this law, and are pushing them to adopt it sooner. they are also criticising the government for watering it down.
various NGOs are also attacking the government for watering it down and not moving as fast as possible.
basically the whole political spectrum is not only for this law, but wants it strengthened even further. there are also calls from the public for the government to go even further.
this is why there is no real backlash against this law. everyone no only wants it, but wants it to go a lot further than what the government has proposed.
They really are not. The current crop of UK politicians of all stripes are thick as they come - intellectual lightweights who can bullshit their way through a media appearance thanks only to an abject lack of shame. No one can look at people like Mark François, Liz Truss or Dianne Abbott (just to take three) and think “ah, there’s someone playing dumb for the camera”!
Unfortunately, the current crop of journalists are largely ineffective if not broadly enabling if this kind of behaviour, and politics is not a field anyone not already independently wealthy can afford to be in (a junior developer in the Bay Area can easily make more than the Prime Minister) so it does not seem likely to self-correct.
Can you elaborate?
Dead Comment
It's currently at 6,327 signatures; it needs 3,673 more for the government to respond and 90,000 more after that for a debate to be considered.
Letters to MPs almost always result in a brush-off too but they do take notice of them at least. Very occasionally you do get a non-template response too.
Let this series of badly-thought-out bills be destroyed in the courts once the courts find that reality bats last.
There’s probably a clause in there that decrees Pi must be four from now on.
How? I thought the UK courts can't override Acts of Parliament, because the courts are subordinate to it (unlike in the US).
This was absolutely an intended outcome for a lot of the figures responsible for the UK’s exit from the EU - European legislation/institutions were more or less the only real absolute check on the authoritarian tendencies of the British state, given the UK’s insane constitutional structures.
Else companies will leave or simply ignore the legislation, e.g. Signal, and the law will quietly become impossible to enforce with a series of arbitrary decisions and fines taking place before the digital economy falls off a cliff.
The UK Courts aren't subordinate to Parliament and can tell the UK government to "go back and think again". For example, the move to export immigrants to Rwanda.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/rwanda-policy-unlawful-unpacking-the-c...
All the tech companies should stand together and be ready to block access to their services. Imagine if the UK was left without access to just WhatsApp, let alone iMessage etc. It's not irresponsible or unsafe, there's always SMS for which the govenment has full control over.
Also I don't think any of these companies should fear an competitors. Why? These services are so ingrained a few weeks if not months of protest will not change anything. When the govnement finally succumbs restoration will be easy and the numbers will go back to normal quickly.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/19/spads-speci...
You need targeted messages on social media and savvy campaigns to get people irate. Eg “campaigners stopping a pregnant mother getting to hospital”. That’s what gets people foaming at the mouth. Even then that’s usually just limited to angry replies on social media
It’s also illegal to peacefully protest now
This govenment is nutorious for it's u-turns. I would be happy to see another in this case.
FB, Apple and Microsoft need to start this campaign ASAP.
IMHO that's the future.
With all that connectivity you can start being much more creative about who provides your transport versus who provides your IP connectivity. VPNs are already becoming mainstream. Sounds like a positive way forward, right? The internet just routes around damage, heh, and laws that restrict what you can and can’t do can be “routed around” by terminating all your traffic in Dublin or Amsterdam.
The trouble is that as it becomes normal for British subjects to export their traffic overseas then I can’t see HM Government policy avenue going anywhere other than all out war on encryption. Again.
Will this apply to me? Do I need to ensure that no UK users are on my server?
I never anticipated this back when I set up the server. I thought that implementing strong security and privacy measures was a responsibility that I should take seriously.
I wouldn't be willing to run the server if I had to compromise people's privacy. If you don't have privacy, you might as well be on a mega-corp service.
The previous Labour government (1997-2010) introduced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_...), which amongst other provisions includes key disclosure rules (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Ki...). The burden of proof in key disclosure is inverted (the accused must prove non-possession of the key or inability to decrypt), which was somewhat controversial amongst people who cared at the time (activation, i.e. actual use if RIPA III provisions, began in 2007).
The same Labour Government ran the Interception Modernisation Programme (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interception_Modernisation_P...) (you may recognise this or "mastering the internet" from the Snowden leaks, although IMP was not a secret) and proposed legislation to enact part of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Data_Bill_200.... This never made it into law.
I think Labour are on board with this, and the senior civil service (those at the top levels who work with ministers or close to those who do) don't change in the same way US administrations do. It might be the case that this bill runs out of time in the current parliament and is not picked up by the next government (this can happen even if the same political party holds office) but the idea will be back in some form one way or another and I suspect will make it into law.