The questions in my opinion then become,
Is it the law preventing these? Is it some people not yet seeing why they should do it? Are they purposefully not doing it initially to calm people?
If they don’t want to be able to do it, it could be rephrased.
These activists are claiming that the government is secretly intending the speed limit to be 1mph. The government are trying to ban driving!! The activists are demanding the enabling legislation be amended so that the speed limit, when set, must be no lower than Xmph.
But all this does is force all regulation to be done in primary legislation.
The debate about what the regulations should be is separate to there being a regulatory system at all.
It is right that the primary legislation just lays out in broad terms that the regulations must be "reasonable" and "proportionate" etc because it's only real purpose is to allow those regulations to be challenged in court in future.
And of course you seem to have to perform an audit to determine how many child users you have in order to be exempted.
Again, this is my reading of the very complex bill. The article from Taylor Wessing seems to concur though.
And the actual, practical meaning of these responsibilities will be defined in a yet-to-be-published Code of Practice...?
Encryption in communication is, to me, akin to the locks on the doors of your residence, on safes or other secure containers. It protects your privacy from prying eyes who want to snoop on what others are doing.
The activists are claiming that the government wishes to require that all locks be unlockable by one of a range of secret "master" keys, so that they can ensure you're not privately doing anything illegal. Not only that, but the government also wishes to institute a compliance regimen to ensure that all locks are indeed actually openable by these master keys.
Given the historic behavior of all governments, I don't trust them not to claim the most powerful interpretation of the laws and regulations that are instituted. Maybe not at first, but it will happen, because it has always happened this way.
The government doesn't care about the technology; it's all about corporate processes, and they're going to regulate it one corporation at a time. If you're not important to be asked to appear before a House of Commons Committee, you're not going to come to Ofcom's attention.
Sure. You are either demanding the impossible - or effectively banning encryption use because there is no other way how to comply with what the law demands, despite it ostensibly not banning anything.
So that's rather disingenuous argument, IMO. The problem is that the governments not only don't care about technology, they don't understand it either. And tend to imagine and demand things that are about as realistic as a square circle - but it is a law, we don't care how you do it, it is your problem!
I would prefer the bill not to be enacted, but I can live with it.
Or anyone who criticizes those in power