This was one of the few times I emailed my MP, Peter Gibson. I laid out all the reasons why backdooring encryption was a bad idea.
I got a response (on very nice thick, embossed paper and green ink) telling me he agrees with me that protecting children online is important and that's why he supports the bill. He clearly didn't read, understand or care what I said.
Something needs to be done. When only the stupid, ignorant or corrupt are the ones willing to go into politics then we are doomed.
Policy isn't made for you. It's made for the Daily Mail, who will relay it to voters in marginal seats, who are the relatively narrow set of people who can actually affect the outcome of elections.
It's not even made to be implemented. The previous "extreme porn" ban fell apart. It's made to get headlines. Then next year there will another "make the internet safe" bill. And another. It's no more going to be finished than "get Brexit done", and for the same reasons.
The same kind of thing has always happened when I’ve sent emails to my MP (in Australia). Just basically a form letter with my name inserted at the top. I expect what happens is one of their staff just skims it, sends the form reply and deletes it…
Every time the government wants to invade your privacy they always do the same old song and dance, an appeal to emotion or some sort of boogeyman.
Drugs
The whole 'reason' we get constant illegal searches on vehicles.
Terrorism
The whole 'reason' we get phones tapped and molested at the airport.
Porn depicting minors
Think of the children, we can't have encryption, you don't want to be a diddler do you?
Domestic Firearms
Listen Sir, we cannot let you own or manufacture guns without absurd rules, for your safety (actually the government's safety)
If you ever hear these ridiculous reasons, run for cover, because the populace is about to get a whole lot more butt-fuckin' coming their way from the state.
There's always exceptions to every rule. As Americans, Humans, whatever, we realize that for the majority to have freedoms, there will be an associated cost. The problem is the cost of the regulations almost always are worse in the long run than the benefits of them.
Often each small 'step' seems reasonable, but when added up, it creates a society in which no-one is very free. Read ISAIF section 14: RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY for more on the endless crawl of control.
It's interesting to compare the backgrounds of MPs in the British Parliament today with a few decades ago.
If you look at the MPs from the 1970s or 80s, many of them were still veterans (i.e. old enough to have served in WW2 or done national service). They came from a wide variety of professions: perhaps coal miners or truck drivers in the Labour Party (the younger ones maybe social workers or schoolteachers), or doctors, lawyers or businessmen in the Conservatives.
Harold Wilson, British PM in the 60s and 70s, was a former academic and civil servant of outstanding ability in his heyday. Margaret Thatcher was a former chemist and food scientist. James Callaghan was a sailor. Ted Heath was a decorated veteran.
At some point this intake became more and more narrow. The route to MP and then government or shadow minister is politics at university (probably PPE or Law), work as a Spad for a few years - or work in media and PR - then maybe run for Parliament in a no-hope seat to test your mettle, and finally land a safe seat somewhere. Your entire life is spent inside a bubble of politics and related media and learning how to climb that one greasy pole.
You are not going to learn about tech, or medicine, or how railways work, or what makes international trade happen. Your focus is on the 24 hour news cycle, politics Twitter, WhatsApp gossip, and who is going to say what at PM Question Time. If the Telegraph or Guardian or whatever paper who backs your party says that we must add backdoor encryption to Protect the Children, then you support backdoor encryption, even though you have only a vague idea about it being something like helpfully leaving the key under the mat so the local bobby can check your house for stolen goods.
I think that's your problem. You're more likely to have success if you send a letter. Bonus points if it's registered mail. More bonus points if it's hand-written.
(Any staffers who can comment, btw? My experience is purely anecdotal).
The "something" is for normal people to get involved.
Start going to public meetings. Start speaking when public comment is requested. Eventually... maybe... possibly... run for office and take the place of the people you think are making bad decisions.
Yes, the chances are slim. Yes, the process is hard. But as long as people sit around and say things like "something needs to be done," nothing will be done.
There is a framework for change in many countries. But these days too often it's only the fringe who have the time and energy to take advantage of it, while the rest of us make excuses. And, as we see, the fringe are most certainly taking advantage of it.
The whackjobs in office didn't get there by playing video games, whining on social media, and making viral TikTok videos for the lulz.
1. This will weaken the UKs ability to have private and secure communication services.
2. Will weaken the UKs tech industry.
3. The technology to provide the frankly bullshit notion of “privacy for the good guys” doesn’t exist and would be difficult to foster.
4. Education, “report don’t share” and tackling child abuse at its root (by not massively defunding the agencies responsible for tackling child abuse) are better solutions then setting up an apparatus of mass surveillance.
Hopefully these points will be brought up in the committee stage of the bill, I’m sure they will.
Edit:
Sorry this isn’t from the House of Lords this was from the joint committee before the bill was introduced to the lords.
Its always been like this. Its the nature of the job. Lying is successful as there is no accountability and wealth leveraging the power granted. The only way out is to limit its function to the minimal bare bones and be vigilant at that. Its become way too big, way too lucrative. Its a corruption vector.
If your letter can be a cookie-cutter template for other such letters, and you are willing to publish it, that would lower the barrier of "doing something".
I got that same “protecting children” BS from Nancy Pelosi when I contacted her about something similar here. Her letter was phrased in a way that felt like I was being accused of trying to support child trafficking. It was actually pretty chilling.
I got a response (on very nice thick, embossed paper and green ink) telling me he agrees with me that protecting children online is important and that's why he supports the bill. He clearly didn't read, understand or care what I said.
If it's anything like the US, I imagine your name/opinion is at least recorded by their staff. Someone who contacts their representative is more likely to vote in the next election, so "likely voter thinks X about important issue Y" is useful data.
I've written my congressperson multiple times and never gotten a personal reply, but I've heard from the staff of said congresspeople that it still counts indirectly as at least your opinion shows up in the stats they use.
It sounds as though you need to be more persistent. Keep replying. Ask to meet in person for an interview. Maybe see if any reporters would be interested in writing about your experience.
There isn't opposition to this bill because authoritarians from the left and right love the idea of it. The left will be able to spy on the rich, the right will be able to spy on the poor.
There is nothing really you can do about it. Even if you vote this government out, the next one will implement this.
> If the UK government really wants to follow through with their plans, they need to set up a Great Firewall - just like China - to block their citizens from accessing encrypted services like Tutanota.
We (the UK) already have a great firewall. Try to access thepiratebay.org or other pirate sites, or other sites that the UK gov deems inappropriate (CP obviously), etc. Its just a case of encroaching that same system just a little further, step by step.
People only tend to fight back when large sweeping one-off changes come in. If you consistently and repeatedly wear the other side down, you eventually get your way. How many times did the house of commons vote on brexit? How many times did the US congress vote on Kevin McCarthy becoming speaker? Yeah, as long as you just keep on and on about it, you get your way.
Refusing to comply and threatening to walk are just two different approaches to protesting this and it's not clear to me which is the most effective.
But I think I trust Signal to know the better approach (whichever they ultimately take - they actually said they'd walk "if the alternative meant undermining our privacy commitments".
I don't think it is practical to just refuse to comply with a government like this - especially if you need to charge money (which Tutanota do) and especially if you're nearby, legally speaking (Are Tutanota in Germany?).
And given that Signal has "walked" from other authoritarian regimes but people in those countries still have ways to use Signal, I'm still betting on Signal.
I think the best strategy is to 'walk' from the country by writing in your T&C's that you don't offer service to the country, shutting down any local office and not doing marketing in the country, but not put any technical restrictions in place.
Frankly given how unworkable it is and how difficult it's going to be to be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction over this, the easiest strategy is to ignore it. Lots of companies will, the government will whinge a bit, then forget about it.
The UK is not the US in terms of enforcing its laws on noncitizens overseas.
I also prefer Signal's approach. By walking you remove the possible liability for non-compliance.
You can't be non-compliant if you have no presence in a certain country, and internet doesn't really give a shit about lines on a map.
By non-complying, legally, you're in the wrong. While such an activism is admirable, I'm going to bet that the UK government is going to throw the book at them if they cause too much hassle.
Pfft, when did that stopped autocrats from doing whatever they want? /s
Here is what will happen - bill will pass, then no politician will say anything about it, or at minimum won't say the word "ban". But mysteriously Tutanota will see connectivity degradation all across UK as a warning shot. Any inquiries will be met with silence or generic non-answers writing which is a profession of all politicians. Then some kind of whitelisting will start, which will include everyone, except rebels like Tutanota, Proton, Signal and others. E.g. no gov. service will accept their domain as non-compliant. There would be a lot of clever barriers invented for this. And at no point Tutanota would be able to claim they are banned because some traces of access will be left deliberately.
Journalists won't pick on this topic and neither would common people. Access will die the "natural" way.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where the bill explicitly recommends backdooring encryption?
The relevant paragraphs appear to be as follows, but the guidance looks quite vague...
257. The Government needs to provide more clarity on how providers with encrypted services should comply with the safety duties ahead of the Bill being introduced into Parliament.
258. We recommend that end-to-end encryption should be identifed as a specifc risk factor in risk profles and risk assessments. Providers should be required to identify and address risks arising from the encrypted nature of their services under the Safety by Design requirements.
If Signal were a truly open distributed system, instead of relying on a centralized almost closed source server, it would not be possible for any government to block it.
And the only thing worse than being blocked, is their "leaving" the country, basically denying the encrypted messaging to the people who need it the most.
I wish that matrix got the attention it deserves, but right now, we are still stuck with this "better than nothing" solution called Signal.
They're not going to walk out of a jail cell either.
When the government bans something, that's not a polite request. It's backed up by men with guns. How they could possibly think they could get away with just not obeying the government is beyond me.
Why is this downvoted? Isn't the UK government one of the prone to look at everyone else from the high horse and criticize the shit out of any "authoritarian regime" while doing the same thing in some of the areas?
Heck, the country where I grow up is classified as a "hybrid regime" by the UK government, and yet, they don't even think about implementing encryption backdoors or censoring and blocking any media.
I wonder what connected vehicle manufacturers will do about encryption being compromised in the U.K.?
I’m nervous at the prospect of my Tesla communicating in (to all intents and purposes) plaintext with the mothership. The API for that car covers sensitive features that would make the car unsafe if compromised
Nice. I like it. They have forgotten longer list of countries that are doing or going to the same thing though. I guess not to dilute the impact of the statement.
I do not condone what UK is going to do of course. Just find the argument fishy.
My guess is the more bravado a company shows, the more they are in bed with the security apparatus and have back doors. No CEO wants jail or crippling fines. The honest ones will leave. The dishonest ones will talk a big game and try to attract more users while secretly backdooring. The security services will complain for effect but actually won’t really punish the company since the more people they can drive to the company, the better for them.
[+] [-] francis-io|3 years ago|reply
I got a response (on very nice thick, embossed paper and green ink) telling me he agrees with me that protecting children online is important and that's why he supports the bill. He clearly didn't read, understand or care what I said.
Something needs to be done. When only the stupid, ignorant or corrupt are the ones willing to go into politics then we are doomed.
[+] [-] pjc50|3 years ago|reply
It's not even made to be implemented. The previous "extreme porn" ban fell apart. It's made to get headlines. Then next year there will another "make the internet safe" bill. And another. It's no more going to be finished than "get Brexit done", and for the same reasons.
[+] [-] stephen_g|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calvinmorrison|3 years ago|reply
Every time the government wants to invade your privacy they always do the same old song and dance, an appeal to emotion or some sort of boogeyman.
Drugs
The whole 'reason' we get constant illegal searches on vehicles.
Terrorism
The whole 'reason' we get phones tapped and molested at the airport.
Porn depicting minors
Think of the children, we can't have encryption, you don't want to be a diddler do you?
Domestic Firearms
Listen Sir, we cannot let you own or manufacture guns without absurd rules, for your safety (actually the government's safety)
If you ever hear these ridiculous reasons, run for cover, because the populace is about to get a whole lot more butt-fuckin' coming their way from the state.
There's always exceptions to every rule. As Americans, Humans, whatever, we realize that for the majority to have freedoms, there will be an associated cost. The problem is the cost of the regulations almost always are worse in the long run than the benefits of them.
Often each small 'step' seems reasonable, but when added up, it creates a society in which no-one is very free. Read ISAIF section 14: RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY for more on the endless crawl of control.
[+] [-] danjac|3 years ago|reply
If you look at the MPs from the 1970s or 80s, many of them were still veterans (i.e. old enough to have served in WW2 or done national service). They came from a wide variety of professions: perhaps coal miners or truck drivers in the Labour Party (the younger ones maybe social workers or schoolteachers), or doctors, lawyers or businessmen in the Conservatives.
Harold Wilson, British PM in the 60s and 70s, was a former academic and civil servant of outstanding ability in his heyday. Margaret Thatcher was a former chemist and food scientist. James Callaghan was a sailor. Ted Heath was a decorated veteran.
At some point this intake became more and more narrow. The route to MP and then government or shadow minister is politics at university (probably PPE or Law), work as a Spad for a few years - or work in media and PR - then maybe run for Parliament in a no-hope seat to test your mettle, and finally land a safe seat somewhere. Your entire life is spent inside a bubble of politics and related media and learning how to climb that one greasy pole.
You are not going to learn about tech, or medicine, or how railways work, or what makes international trade happen. Your focus is on the 24 hour news cycle, politics Twitter, WhatsApp gossip, and who is going to say what at PM Question Time. If the Telegraph or Guardian or whatever paper who backs your party says that we must add backdoor encryption to Protect the Children, then you support backdoor encryption, even though you have only a vague idea about it being something like helpfully leaving the key under the mat so the local bobby can check your house for stolen goods.
[+] [-] Cpoll|3 years ago|reply
I think that's your problem. You're more likely to have success if you send a letter. Bonus points if it's registered mail. More bonus points if it's hand-written.
(Any staffers who can comment, btw? My experience is purely anecdotal).
[+] [-] reaperducer|3 years ago|reply
The "something" is for normal people to get involved.
Start going to public meetings. Start speaking when public comment is requested. Eventually... maybe... possibly... run for office and take the place of the people you think are making bad decisions.
Yes, the chances are slim. Yes, the process is hard. But as long as people sit around and say things like "something needs to be done," nothing will be done.
There is a framework for change in many countries. But these days too often it's only the fringe who have the time and energy to take advantage of it, while the rest of us make excuses. And, as we see, the fringe are most certainly taking advantage of it.
The whackjobs in office didn't get there by playing video games, whining on social media, and making viral TikTok videos for the lulz.
[+] [-] kaanski|3 years ago|reply
Thankfully after reading through the House of Lords draft of the bill (https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8206/documents...) it looks like E2E encryption is a major concern of the upper house.
They mention that:
1. This will weaken the UKs ability to have private and secure communication services.
2. Will weaken the UKs tech industry.
3. The technology to provide the frankly bullshit notion of “privacy for the good guys” doesn’t exist and would be difficult to foster.
4. Education, “report don’t share” and tackling child abuse at its root (by not massively defunding the agencies responsible for tackling child abuse) are better solutions then setting up an apparatus of mass surveillance.
Hopefully these points will be brought up in the committee stage of the bill, I’m sure they will.
Edit:
Sorry this isn’t from the House of Lords this was from the joint committee before the bill was introduced to the lords.
[+] [-] pibechorro|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cyclotron3k|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harel|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benjaminsky2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mouse_|3 years ago|reply
Next he'll say, "Our constituents want this!"
[+] [-] scottLobster|3 years ago|reply
I've written my congressperson multiple times and never gotten a personal reply, but I've heard from the staff of said congresspeople that it still counts indirectly as at least your opinion shows up in the stats they use.
[+] [-] guntherhermann|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phpisthebest|3 years ago|reply
People do not like to be told the truth.. so when all people want to hear is lies and talk of utopia, all you will get is lairs and conmen...
We are doomed...
[+] [-] mabbo|3 years ago|reply
Make it painful for the MP to be an asshole.
[+] [-] nathias|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] varispeed|3 years ago|reply
There is nothing really you can do about it. Even if you vote this government out, the next one will implement this.
[+] [-] TamDenholm|3 years ago|reply
We (the UK) already have a great firewall. Try to access thepiratebay.org or other pirate sites, or other sites that the UK gov deems inappropriate (CP obviously), etc. Its just a case of encroaching that same system just a little further, step by step.
People only tend to fight back when large sweeping one-off changes come in. If you consistently and repeatedly wear the other side down, you eventually get your way. How many times did the house of commons vote on brexit? How many times did the US congress vote on Kevin McCarthy becoming speaker? Yeah, as long as you just keep on and on about it, you get your way.
[+] [-] comice|3 years ago|reply
But I think I trust Signal to know the better approach (whichever they ultimately take - they actually said they'd walk "if the alternative meant undermining our privacy commitments".
I don't think it is practical to just refuse to comply with a government like this - especially if you need to charge money (which Tutanota do) and especially if you're nearby, legally speaking (Are Tutanota in Germany?).
And given that Signal has "walked" from other authoritarian regimes but people in those countries still have ways to use Signal, I'm still betting on Signal.
[+] [-] londons_explore|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|3 years ago|reply
The UK is not the US in terms of enforcing its laws on noncitizens overseas.
[+] [-] sgjohnson|3 years ago|reply
You can't be non-compliant if you have no presence in a certain country, and internet doesn't really give a shit about lines on a map.
By non-complying, legally, you're in the wrong. While such an activism is admirable, I'm going to bet that the UK government is going to throw the book at them if they cause too much hassle.
[+] [-] Yizahi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mwagstaff|3 years ago|reply
The relevant paragraphs appear to be as follows, but the guidance looks quite vague...
257. The Government needs to provide more clarity on how providers with encrypted services should comply with the safety duties ahead of the Bill being introduced into Parliament.
258. We recommend that end-to-end encryption should be identifed as a specifc risk factor in risk profles and risk assessments. Providers should be required to identify and address risks arising from the encrypted nature of their services under the Safety by Design requirements.
Source: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8206/documents...
[+] [-] pattyj|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dj_mc_merlin|3 years ago|reply
1. Get sued
2. Get a court order to backdoor your encryption
3. Get your doors bashed in by police for non compliance, everything seized, and a criminal case coming your way
It's not like one company can fight its own government.
[+] [-] kevincox|3 years ago|reply
I don't see any other option if what service you want to provide is illegal where you are based.
[+] [-] jjgreen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glerk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnbaker92|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AndyMcConachie|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Maxburn|3 years ago|reply
But I'm thinking Signal was more along the lines "we don't want to invite litigation".
Both send the same message.
[+] [-] miroljub|3 years ago|reply
And the only thing worse than being blocked, is their "leaving" the country, basically denying the encrypted messaging to the people who need it the most.
I wish that matrix got the attention it deserves, but right now, we are still stuck with this "better than nothing" solution called Signal.
[+] [-] say_it_as_it_is|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] izacus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IanCal|3 years ago|reply
Would they in any way be required to?
> Email services
> 1 A user-to-user service is exempt if emails are the only user-generated content (other than identifying content) enabled by the service.
[+] [-] Jiro|3 years ago|reply
When the government bans something, that's not a polite request. It's backed up by men with guns. How they could possibly think they could get away with just not obeying the government is beyond me.
[+] [-] pastacacioepepe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miroljub|3 years ago|reply
Heck, the country where I grow up is classified as a "hybrid regime" by the UK government, and yet, they don't even think about implementing encryption backdoors or censoring and blocking any media.
[+] [-] cbeach|3 years ago|reply
I’m nervous at the prospect of my Tesla communicating in (to all intents and purposes) plaintext with the mothership. The API for that car covers sensitive features that would make the car unsafe if compromised
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] FpUser|3 years ago|reply
Nice. I like it. They have forgotten longer list of countries that are doing or going to the same thing though. I guess not to dilute the impact of the statement.
I do not condone what UK is going to do of course. Just find the argument fishy.
[+] [-] majortennis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r3trohack3r|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kytazo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thr0wnawaytod4y|3 years ago|reply