No human being whatsoever should be surprised when Reuters offers better reporting than The Register.
Wow, she just lies so easily.
deploying this mass surveillance system is definitely possible.
There is no question that mass surveillance is possible. It's the government claiming that what it wants tech companies to implement is not mass surveillance.
where did she claim that?
the article just says:
> "If there was a situation where the mitigations that the social media providers are taking are not enough, and if after further work with the regulator they still can't demonstrate that they can meet the requirements within the bill, then the conversation about technology around encryption takes place," she said.
> She said further work to develop the technology was needed, but added that government-funded research had shown it was possible.
and what does "safe" even mean?
The article actually states everything the OP did here. I'm not sure what is missed.
From what Ive heard on the grapevine PR flacks hate the Register. That kind of says it all. They dont just republish press releases like Reuters or write neoliberal op eds like the Economist.
>It is both illiberal and impractical
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/05/26/britain-should-...
Also:
>Britain’s parallel legislative effort is shaping up to be more far-reaching. The Online Safety Bill was conceived in 2019 after the suicide of a 14-year-old who had binged on algorithmically recommended depressive material. Four prime ministers later, the text of the bill has almost doubled in length. An American tech firm dubs it “one of the most complex bills we face anywhere in the world”.
>It goes further than the EU in its loosely worded requirement for platforms to proactively screen material. The larger social networks already check videos for matches with known child-abuse content. But subtler crimes, such as incitement to violence, are harder to detect automatically. The scale of some platforms—YouTube uploads 500 hours of video per minute—means that a strict requirement to pre-screen content could throttle the amount of new material uploaded.
From a larger article looking at US/UK/EU legislation and politics on the issue:
https://www.economist.com/international/2023/05/29/the-speec...
Everyone with good judgment hates The Register and recognizes that it's unmitigated hot garbage. This does not logically imply that the PR flacks you're referring to necessarily have good judgment and I don't mean to imply that.
Nothing personal, everyone has their lapses. Look at music in the late nineties...
> They dont just republish press releases like Reuters or write neoliberal op eds like the Economist.
Okee dokee.