Dark day for online privacy in the UK.

  • CouldntCareBear@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    1 year ago

    After bouncing back and forth between the house of lord’s and the house of commons This bill is a shadow of it’s former self. I’m glad to say.

    Three things that were massively damaging for privacy and security have, as far as I can see, been scrapped.

    1. The bill no longer requires tech companies to control ‘harmful but legal’ content. A blurry, ill defined concept that would have been impossible to regulate.
    2. The bill no longer requires all end to end encrypted communication channel’s (WhatsApp etc) to have a backdoor for governments and enforcement agencies to access unencrypted messages between people. Something that would have broken effective security in every way.
    3. The bill no longer requires porn to only be accessible to UK citizens after they have proven they are an adult. This was by providing bank details or ID to porn websites (lol no thanks), possibly through a third party company that is supposed to assure some privacy ( lol still no thanks).

    And what’s left in the bill is going to be regulated by Ofcom, a toothless underfunded shell of a regulatory body.

    • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Can I ask where you got this info from? The article says the bill is 300 pages long. I’m never getting through all that.

      Edit: the article also claims age verification for porn sites is still in there?

    • LerajeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      re your 2nd point, that’s most certainly not been scrapped. The language has changed to basically say, they’re aware thetech doesn’t currently exist to do this but as soon as it does, it must be done. It’s a temporary reprieve at best.

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

          Because the social media giants should be held responsible for the damaging stuff they host and push through algorithms that target hate and an adapted “if it bleeds it leads” style of pushing things just to keep people enraged and engaged.

          Why do you think removing child porn, animal crushing videos, and suicide content is a bad thing?

          • Rin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            mf, i just don’t want british glowies in my dms which is what this bill basically is, even if it’s been “paused”. also, most of that shit is already illegal here, so cope.

            i know you’re just here to instigate so don’t bother replying

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

              Jesus, so dramatic.

              I just have a different opinion than you and don’t feel this is as big a deal as the hyperbole makes it sound, while also doing great good to help the internet and the kids that have to grow up alongside it.

              We already know the kind of damage the exposure to this sort of content can cause to a developing mind, and if the internet is going to be around forever, then we absolutely SHOULD be doing stuff like this just to hold the tech players accountable.

              You can still use your precious DMs encrypted in other places my guy, even Signal thinks it’s negotiable, so calm your tits.