Sounds like Let's Encrypt would also fall under that.

This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the streets they walk on. I walk on them too. And don't use CP as a catch-all argument to insert backdoors.

Their big problem here is that previously, it was hard to find people with the same opinion as you. If you couldn't find someone in the same village who wanted to start a rebellion, it probably wouldn't happen. Today, someone can post a Telegram group message and make thousands of people rally to a town square. I see the dangers, and I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people. No one wants civil war. That is still not a strong enough reason to call road construction a hostile activity.

I'm back in Sweden after 12 years abroad. Time to read up on which parties are sane and which aren't when it comes to technical infrastructure.

But why are pretty much all governments universally inept? It's not only the UK but US gov has also pushed for this and plenty of other stupendously stupid ideas or decisions - and plenty of other governments (well, all of them) besides.

It leads me to believe that our species is incapable of leading itself, that we are incapable of choosing good leaders.

Police militarization, drones, army unit investigating private civilians, digital powers widening... I am more scared of the government than I am of local paramilitary forces at this point.

It may be enough to swing my vote towards Irish unity given the topic will be forced within my life time.

So say if my UK friend connected directly to my PC with SSH/RDP, both uses end-to-end encrypted link, to chat with me using `wall`, `write` or Windows Task Manager, then all of sudden this is a hostile and Mr Big Ben will just launch laser at me to burn me to death. Wow, this is just messed up.

Someone should check the cognitive of those lawmakers, because these guys are clearly not good at their jobs. If such they failed to understand such simple concept, how can they understand much much more complex construct such as society?

So again, it just harms the general public, while making it harder to catch criminals.

Can someone suggest a better title? Better here means "accurate and neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article".

It's fast becoming an authoritarian hellhole.

Outlaw all guns and make end-to-end encryption illegal doesn't stop GRU dropping novichok perfume bottles around england.

mi6govukbfxe5pzxqw3otzd2t4nhi7v6x4dljwba3jmsczozcolx2vqd.onion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYB129pGq0k

if somebody really has high income(and high risk) illegal scheme he will not use signal for very bad things.

more, llm can tell exactly do things outlined above.

so chat control is for small(small income) crime and control of ordinary citizens behave well. in this sence it will serve its purpose.

so what is purpose going for signal developers? why not they try to do same with webrtc standard and browsers and llms?

The "watchdog" is a KC (senior barrister) officially appointed to review the legislation. He's warning that this could be considered hostile activity under the act, which would be a bad thing. In other words, he's criticising the act for being overly broad, a view that most on HN agree with, and his criticisms of it presumably carry some weight, given his official role.

As usual, this has provoked a load of ill-informed knee-jerk rants about the UK government from people who didn't read past the headline. This act is an absolute stinker, but let's maybe criticise what's actually happening rather than some imagined cartoon variant of it.

If there was ever a signal ( edit: happy accident ) that it should be done, it is that the government agency thinks it is a bad idea.

I think we should all massively move to crypto, gold and such things, avoid KYC when possible and show these people that we will not go through their wishes no matter the oppressive laws they try to come up with.

They can put a few in jail. But when we are millions, what are they going to do?

Being hostile to these agendas is becoming a necessity.

Just look at the Tempest for Eliza project. And current snoopers are even more effective than that.

This is just a symptom of security services not doing the job tax payers pay them to do.

Like when foreign asset managers can influence government to create policies nobody voted for and make it the most important thing on the agenda? No a single arrest?

We are entering banana republic territory.

Vote them out at the very least.

Intruding everyone's privacy is not that!

Should everyone hand in their full recording of private conversations and full track of movements per month so you can filter out those breaking the law and claim you did your job?! NO!

Or better yet, should everyone spend two weeks in a high-security jail every three years, just so you can claim that, statistically speaking, crimes were punished? So your life can be easy, you can kick back, and collect paychecks? You'd like that, wouldn't you?! Maybe farmers can ask people making food for themselves but still collecting money for it, shouldn't they?

If you must intrude the privacy of all people then you are just a buch of incompetent idiots without a clue how to chase the actual criminals instead of harassing honest people! Exposing everyone to bad actors. Which is a crime on its own, by the way!

If you are unable to do without privacy violations for everyone then get a job you are able to carry out!

Walls, locks, gates, and all such are made for a purpose: to protect people. Don't break them!

It may soon not be safe for authors of any privacy or encryption software to visit it or live in it.

The way to fight this is to make and use so much encryption software that no private communications or storage stay unencrypted or non-private.

Right-wing extremist and likely Russian asset.

There are very few situations where a journalist would need to hide himself from a legitimate government who respects due process.

With the Trump administration, in China, Russia, yes of course. Those apps do matter. Conventional apps are probably giving data to abusive governments if their laws require it.

With criminals using those apps to not get caught in those legitimate due process countries, I don't really know if those apps are worth using it they help criminals.

I agree that I don't want to give my data to big companies or for ads.

But I trust a legitimate government and due process.

Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where evidence is instantly destroyed.

Want to have a private communication, I think offline is the right approach.

I agree that it sucks, but it’s probably not about you. It’s about nefarious people that use this as an uber advantage.