Petition against UK Home Office plans for surveillance and encryption backdoors
act.openmedia.org
act.openmedia.org
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/pdfs/home_offic...
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summ...
edit: beat to it by a minute!
That said, and IANAL, this document is not covered because of 5(2) - there's no reasonable grounds for believing that releasing this document is damaging to national security. It's a draft, so does not describe any measures currently in effect, and the draft will be made public in a few days when it is submitted to parliament, before it has any effect.
That's not true. It's a law not a contract; everybody is bound by it: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summ...
>Do you have to sign the Official Secrets Act to be bound by it?
>It is not necessary for a person to have signed the Official Secrets Act in order to be bound by it.
However I am also fortunate enough that I can pick and choose what I do for work. If my position were not so safe and it was the difference between buying food or not then I suspect I would take a job I disagree with. Your situation changes your perspective to a certain degree.
Or, you know, annihilate the Tories, hold the state to account and prevent this shit from happening.
Regardless, I think we're crediting pols too much with an agenda that, IMO, is likely driven by the Home Office.
The odds are controlled by media bias and collective rhetoric. So much so I noticed some phrases created by newspapers and later repeated by the PM herself.
I'll be voting for the party with the best policies, I have not forgotten that the current PM has championed snoopers charters.
The care for privacy the tech community has is a minority and edge case. Beyond HN the world doesn't really consider the relationship between a political party and privacy laws.
That's difficult in a country with largely billionaire-run or staunchly establishment-friendly media.
They may not like all the policies of the Tories but the alternative poses something of an existential threat to their overwhelming wealth.
“relevant telecommunications operator” means a telecommunications operator, or a person who is proposing to become a telecommunications operator( b ), but does not include a person who provides, or who is proposing to provide, a telecommunications service only in relation to the provision by that person of banking, insurance, investment or other financial services.
... Presumably now that the "industry standard" contains a backdoor, we (the people) can have a backdoor into this hand-over interface too?
The BBC recently stated in their cyclic review soon after the Scottish referendum they want to strengthen the presence of the BBC in Scotland and increase programming promoting the national UK government interests. So we'll have to see how long the Scots want independence for.
Moving countries isn't easy, and getting settled in a new location takes time.
The 5 year rule is part of the existing freedom of movement regulation. It provides additional protection against getting kicked out in case of sickness or unemployment.
Exercising the right to live and work anywhere in the EU before Brexit takes effect may well mean that you can keep those rights after Brexit and acquire permanent residence rights later on.
Anything else would mean that hundereds of thousands of people would have to be deported, which would go against every promise made in the referendum campaign.
From there you might have to wait N-years for citizenship, but freedom of movement hasn't been curtailed at the moment, even if it might be in the future.
The only potential spanner in the works is the question of what happens to foreigners in the UK, and the reciprocal agreement that has yet to be agreed. But it seems extraordinarily unlikely a UK-citizen who gained residency in German would be told to leave in two years time.
I'm not happy about the Brexit vote, but in all honesty even with the "Leave" result I don't think I'd have left the country.
(As it happens I left the year before, for unrelated reasons, but I'm a little glad I left.)
We're also weighing our options but haven't made a decision yet on whether and where we're going to go.
Australia has gone down the same path, both parties are in agreement on this stripping back of privacy, metadata collection and (what feels like to me) moving to a totalitarian regime. I don't think this can be fixed.
I don't blame you and I feel the same way.
How sure are you about that? I was surprised by the number of people who have been holding some unpleasant opinions secret forever, and then felt safe to express them for a short while following the Brexit vote. It seems to have become unacceptable again, but it turned out more people than I realised were holding these views.
I regularly see people mouthing off on forums about how they're going to leave their respective countries because they're not happy they didn't get their way in one vote or another. But do I see people ever say that they have left their countries? Pretty much never.
We're too busy whining about domestic politics in the new one and talking about how we're going to leave it :).
Could this be interpreted, legally, to exempt end-to-end encryption?
- When implemented properly (i.e. with proper key verification UIs) it should not be "practicable" for communications operators to force disclosure of the contents of users' communications.
- End-to-end encryption is not "applied by [..] the operator" but rather applied by the users' device.
I can't see overseas companies trusting UK start ups with confidential trade and commercial secrets. There is already enough cooperate paranoia after the NSA was accused of spying on European corps and there seems to be evidence to suggest such a thing actually happened.
Atleast I'm not the only person who thinks these policies are making the UK a unpopular place to open shop as long as there are countries with not so oppressive laws.