Hacker News Reader

Comment by ambicapter | Hacker News Reader

Why is the UK so authoritarian on cyber security? I feel like they're consistently on HN with this type of "rules for thee, not for me" attitude regarding computer law.

View on HN

This article is about the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which aims to increase the security of critical assets, and to strengthen breach reporting requirements.

It's puzzling to hear those steps described as "authoritarian." What makes you feel that way?

We're in 2026 and the pendulum has fully pendulumed. Authoritarianism now means when the government does stuff.

There’s a definite trend in many HN threads talking about the UK in the last few months that’s trying to push my narrative.

My money’s on Twitter being the source.

Unfortunate typo. that narrative, not my narrative.

The UK is in a strange position, where it must have regulations that are fairly similar to those of the European Union in order to benefit from cross-recognition and not hinder trade with its main partner. In this case, NIS2.

But at the same time, they don't want to admit it and are rewriting these standards in a very specific way so that only British engineering firms and consultants can draft regulatory documents or ensure compliance.

It ensures a monopoly for these engineering firms and consultants.

The UK is authoritarian on "computer law" but not very different from other western countries.

Not just cyber security.

The current prime minister is the least popular in recent memory, so that might have something to do with it. [See sources listed below.]

You’re going to need to cite a non-tabloid source if you want that claim to be taken seriously.

Starmer is indeed very unpopular, but “least popular ever” is not a claim which even has an agreed-upon measure.

Remember Liz Truss lasted lasted less time in office than it took for a lettuce to rot.

Liz Truss was barely in long enough for people to conduct a poll!

Thatcher was controversial but had ardent supporters. Where are Starmer's supporters? There aren't many even within the Labour Party.

No idea whether someone like Pitt the Younger or Canning back over a century ago were less popular. Really the onus should be on people to disprove this. I have not encountered a single live Starmer supporter in the wild but anyway...

https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/starmer-labour-c...

"New polling reveals Sir Keir is the least popular prime minister on record, with a net satisfaction rating of -66, lower than previous lows for Rishi Sunak and John Major."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/27/starmer-leas... "Starmer is least popular PM on record, poll finds Only 13 per cent of voters are satisfied with Prime Minister, the fewest of any leader since 1970s."

I suppose you will complain about the Telegraph, but it isn't a tabloid.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/12/wh...

"Keir Starmer is the least popular prime minister on record, less than 18 months after being elected. In this sense, he is making history. Few, if any, mainstream political commentators anticipated this situation before the 2024 election. Of course, many on the radical left predicted it several years ago, but who listens to us?"

Popularity is a poor measure of performance in UK politics. The British public are regularly shown to be fickle and easily led in their judgements.

Results are a bit meh so far with Labour but at least they're not Trussesque dangerous. And positive achievements rarely get a mention in our press. Can't think why.

This is anecdotal I know, but I have not met anyone who supports Starmer. Not one. I knew Thatcherites and folk who thought Blair and Brown were okay.

He got in because people were sick of the last lot. Jeremy Corbyn got more votes overall as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com