Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday January 18, @10:21AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]

The UK Government is reportedly preparing a PR blitz against end-to-end encryption:

Meta recently said that it would implement end-to-end encryption in Facebook Messenger and Instagram by 2023, despite strong opposition from governments in the UK and elsewhere. However, the UK Home Office is reportedly planning an ad campaign to mobilize public opinion against end-to-end encryption using what critics called "scaremongering" tactics, according to a report from Rolling Stone.

The UK government plans to team up with charities and law enforcement agencies on a public relations blitz created by M&C Saatchi advertising agency, the report states. The aim of the campaign is to relay a message that end-to-end encryption could hamper efforts to curb child exploitation online. 

"We have engaged M&C Saatchi to bring together the many organizations who share our concerns about the impact end-to-end encryption would have on our ability to keep children safe," a Home Office spokesperson told Rolling Stone in a statement. The government has allocated £534,000 ($730,500) for the blitz, according to a letter sent from the Home Office in response to a freedom of information request. 


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @10:49AM (21 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @10:49AM (#1213549)

    Conservatives love to project how "the left" wish to impose Stalinesque authoritarianism upon their people.

    But here we are, "the right" want to spy on you. Any old excuse, be it terrorists or kiddy-fiddling royals will do to take away your freedoms.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 18, @10:53AM (5 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 18, @10:53AM (#1213551)

      In the words of Michael Howard "The innocent having nothing to hide"

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @10:59AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @10:59AM (#1213554)

        Tell that to the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, who have maintained a vigil for decades in Buenos Aires for their kids that disappeared under Argentina's military junta.

        Assumes your government isn't tyrannous.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @03:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @03:46PM (#1213587)

          Whoosh

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday January 18, @04:36PM

        by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 18, @04:36PM (#1213596)

        Yes they do. They may not be up to anything nefarious, but privacy is still a thing so far.

        --
        Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 18, @06:53PM (1 child)

        by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 18, @06:53PM (#1213627)

        For those who don't know who/what Michael "Something of the Night" Howard is, the parent comment was going in the direction of "yes the Tories are evil". He is the archetypal "evil home secretary" (not sure if there is a US equivalent to the Home Secretary, but in charge of running police, judiciary, few other things along those lines). Famous interview:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI [youtube.com]

        It dates back to the late 90s, when the then Tory government was at the end of its approx 20 year rule, deeply unpopular, cast against young and trendy Tony Blair leading the new government of the Labour party.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @02:32AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @02:32AM (#1213753)

          Next time include an adjective like wanker or genius to indicate the tone in which your reference is given.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Unixnut on Tuesday January 18, @01:15PM (7 children)

      by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday January 18, @01:15PM (#1213566)

      >Conservatives love to project how "the left" wish to impose Stalinesque authoritarianism upon their people.
      >But here we are, "the right" want to spy on you. Any old excuse, be it terrorists or kiddy-fiddling royals will do to take away your freedoms.

      Meh, the biggest con ever pulled on the masses is the "left" vs "right" paradigm. The real "two sides" are centralisation/authoritarianism and decentralisation/freedom.

      What they have done is convince the masses that the choice is between "authoritarianism with marxist/socialist veneer", or "authoritarianism with fascist/nationalistic veneer". For those in power it is a "win-win". All the masses ever do is argue over the colour of the veneer while underneath it is the exact same pile of excrement. There is no real choice at all.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Rich on Tuesday January 18, @04:23PM (3 children)

        by Rich (945) on Tuesday January 18, @04:23PM (#1213593) Journal

        Meh, the biggest con ever pulled on the masses is the "left" vs "right" paradigm. The real "two sides" are centralisation/authoritarianism and decentralisation/freedom.

        An even bigger con is the pretense that the absence of authoritarianism means freedom. There has got to be some ordering mechanism, even if it's just the Antitrust Fairies libertarians believe in. In the "capitalist freedom" case, freedom directly correlates to the amount of money one has. Now, if the ordering structure was entirely absent, that would be anarchy, and then we'd come full circle to enjoy the authoritarianism of our local warlords.

        • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday January 18, @06:27PM (1 child)

          by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday January 18, @06:27PM (#1213621)

          In my world there is a distinction between "authoritarianism" and "authority" . An absence of authoritarianism does not mean an absence of authority.

          To me authoritarianism is excessive authority imposed by force in a suppressive manner, while Authority is something people willingly submit to (in return for stability and order, or some other benefits).

          • (Score: 2) by Rich on Tuesday January 18, @08:58PM

            by Rich (945) on Tuesday January 18, @08:58PM (#1213668) Journal

            Um... Authority is just as suppressive as authoritarianism (gawd, I have to copy/paste that word...), it's just not perceived as such. People in the west don't question that they can't copy The Mouse, while 'recorded transfer of information' is the single thing that sets us apart from other species. In eastern bloc countries, no one would have cared about that (unless someone imagined the content might be a political metaphor). The questioning only starts when something is taken away from the people, or they see that people elsewhere have something they don't.

            I'm rather convinced that the GDR didn't fall because people had an eternal desire for political freedom, but rather that they were fed up with their two-stroke cardboard stinkers, dirty plaster falling of the walls, and people across the border having 16-bit video games, while they could have an 8-bitter, if they were lucky, that the western relatives were just throwing out for the new, shiny Amiga. Who today would complain about the political situation in Singapore, a one-party state with surveillance is at a level that would bring tears of joy to the nastiest Stasi people, and refuse to go there, when good money is to be made?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 19, @03:16AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 19, @03:16AM (#1213769) Journal

          An even bigger con is the pretense that the absence of authoritarianism means freedom.

          I wouldn't call this an "even bigger" con when no one has had the opportunity to fall for it.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 18, @04:37PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 18, @04:37PM (#1213597)

        You're right that there's marxist-veneer authoritarianism, and fascist-veneer authoritarianism, and both of those can and do get a lot of people killed. Would-be kings always like to dress up their absolute authority in whatever veneer will make them popular enough to gain military control over their target territory, after which their popularity doesn't matter so much and they can just do whatever they had really wanted to do in the first place. It also makes a significant difference as to which people get killed or enslaved or otherwise mistreated depending on what variety of authoritarian regime you're dealing with, e.g. some regimes target minority groups, other regimes target intellectuals that might say something against the regime.

        There's also important differences between the right-wing decentralization idea (a.k.a. what Americans call libertarianism), and the left-wing decentralization idea (anarchism): Right-wing decentralization types often want to distribute or even eliminate government authority, but regularly advocate (at least in my experience) for authority structures within households (usually "dad's in charge and everyone has to obey him, mom rules over the kids when dad isn't around") and also generally favor strong authority structures in business where, for instance, the only recourse for employees unhappy with their treatment or compensation is to quit. Left-wing decentralization types also want to distribute or eliminate government authority, but also oppose hierarchies within households beyond "adults set boundaries for kids for their own safety until they're able to negotiate reasonably with their parents" and are seeking less hierarchical ways of organizing the economy like worker-owned co-ops and such.

        And note this has very little to do with specific political parties or political figures. Both parties and politicians are more likely to be authoritarian than not simply because anybody who seeks out a position that puts them in charge of things is somebody who believes in some people being in charge of what other people are doing.

        --
        Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by istartedi on Tuesday January 18, @05:18PM

        by istartedi (123) on Tuesday January 18, @05:18PM (#1213609) Journal

        The real two sides are good vs. evil.

        That's a bit like saying the answer is 42 though, and not telling us the question.

        You're immediately drawn towards deciding what's good and what's evil, and the answer isn't always clear. In the political sphere, if I have to say there are two sides other than good vs. evil, I'd say it's: "Humanity vs. ideology".

        The left, the right, the anarchist, the patriot. All of these can take their ideologies to an extreme, to the point where they lose their humanity. All of them can be good, but they can also be evil.

        If you want to make real progress, you have to be willing to throw your ideology under the bus from time-to-time. It's called compromise, and our lack of it is being demonstrated in Congress right now.

      • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Thursday January 20, @02:12AM

        by loonycyborg (6905) on Thursday January 20, @02:12AM (#1214030)

        There is no two sides. In fact there is no reason to look for exactly two sides.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Tuesday January 18, @02:50PM

      by crafoo (6639) on Tuesday January 18, @02:50PM (#1213580)

      Their are authoritarians everywhere. Ones that love equality and ones that love stability. None of them love freedom. But of course they both feel perfectly justified in forcing their values down your throat. Yeah, it gets tiresome.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @03:26PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @03:26PM (#1213585)

      Hi! I'm Clippy!

      You seem to be trying to make a political point, but you're getting confused between UK and USA politics. Why not crack a history book and fill your brain with knowledge?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 18, @04:46PM (3 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 18, @04:46PM (#1213600)

        but you're getting confused between UK and USA politics.

        Based on how the UK Tories have been behaving lately, no, I don't think they were confused in the slightest: The Tories have been making approximately the same argument that the US Republicans have been making to convince people to support them. The signature Tory policy of the last decade, Brexit, was sold on the "those socialists and greens on the continent shouldn't be able to control the great and glorious United Kingdom" and more than a bit of the same "brown people are sneaking over the borders of our country and will soon be running the place and we can't let that happen" that was key to Donald Trump.

        At the very least, that poster is no more confused than Boris Johnson, based on an admittedly outsider impression of how he speaks and manages his hair. Say what you will about David Cameron and Theresa May, they at least appeared to have their brains fully functioning most of the time.

        --
        Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
        • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @06:56PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @06:56PM (#1213629)

          "and more than a bit of the same "brown people are sneaking over the borders of our country and will soon be running the place and we can't let that happen" that was key to Donald Trump."

          what's your point, dumb ass? non-whites are being trafficked by the NGOs (non gentile organizations) into all White nations and they (the Jews and the invaders) all openly brag about replacing whites.

          https://odysee.com/@ETKE21:8/pbry68WhiteGenocideIsReal-InTheirOwnWords:0 [odysee.com]

          London has muslim anti-white mayor and there are fucking mosques all over the place. Ireland is being invaded by niggers, ffs. You're probably one of these brainwashed hypocrites who only have to deal with professional non-whites, or on your own terms like your service providers where they are usually on their best behavior and you have power over them. Poor whites have to deal with them as criminal aggressors and competitors for work, gov services,. etc. You're just a fucking race traitor. When it gets bad enough for people to wake up to what's been going on, you fucks will get yours.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @08:06PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @08:06PM (#1213648)

            Uh oh the incel is making veiled death threats again. Whatever shall we do? Call weather control, make sure it is bright and sunny in his area for the next few years just to be safe.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @12:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @12:23PM (#1213825)

          The EU is anti-democratic. Brexit brings democracy to a far more local and accountable level. Why do you hate democracy and people having more of a say in how their country is ruled?

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 18, @09:04PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 18, @09:04PM (#1213670) Homepage Journal

      Why does the UK hate democracy?

      --
      Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday January 18, @10:51AM (3 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Tuesday January 18, @10:51AM (#1213550)

    So end-to-end encryption will be denied police and kiddie porn investigators too, meaning their stash of photo evidence will be transmitted in the clear also. Or hackers with the key to the backdoor will be able to have at it too.

    Or does the ban on end-to-end encryption only apply to everybody else?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @10:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @10:53AM (#1213552)

      Prince Andrew caused quite a stir.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Kell on Tuesday January 18, @12:14PM

      by Kell (292) on Tuesday January 18, @12:14PM (#1213561)

      Silly citizen - the laws only apply us peasants, not your masters!

      --
      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
    • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday January 18, @03:23PM

      by inertnet (4071) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 18, @03:23PM (#1213584)

      Internally it will probably be called "end-to-us-to-end".

  • (Score: 5, Touché) by DrkShadow on Tuesday January 18, @10:53AM (3 children)

    by DrkShadow (1404) on Tuesday January 18, @10:53AM (#1213553)

    I thought this argument was, like, soo~ 2001. Didn't they move onto terrorists? Now it's back to thinking of the children?

    Do these things go in cycles? Are we going to have a red-scare again next? or the pot smokers being a problem first?

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by kazzie on Tuesday January 18, @11:14AM

      by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 18, @11:14AM (#1213555)

      Anyone got a box of leftover clipper chips to offer to HM Government?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by epitaxial on Tuesday January 18, @01:25PM (1 child)

      by epitaxial (3165) on Tuesday January 18, @01:25PM (#1213567)

      Well everyone should be safer now that Jimmy Saville is dead.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @10:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @10:04PM (#1213691)

        Well everyone should be safer now that Jimmy Saville is dead.

        #JimFixedIt — for victims to know it was happening to others, that they weren't alone, that they could speak out with confidence.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @12:03PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @12:03PM (#1213560)

    The UK knew organized rings of child sex exploitation and made it a point to do nothing about it:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal [wikipedia.org]

    This "for the children" argument is hollow.

    • (Score: 2) by istartedi on Tuesday January 18, @05:21PM

      by istartedi (123) on Tuesday January 18, @05:21PM (#1213610) Journal

      I guess that explains why when I hit their web site [www.gov.uk], it immediately flips over to HTTPS even if I leave the 's' off. /sarcasm.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 18, @07:00PM (1 child)

      by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 18, @07:00PM (#1213631)

      > In May 2014 there were 63 elected members on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council: 57 Labour, four Conservatives, one UKIP and one Independent.

      So run by Labour, not Tories

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 18, @10:42PM

        by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Tuesday January 18, @10:42PM (#1213701) Homepage
        Please apply your insightful analysis to Glasgow and Cambridge, which are also implicated in the grooming gangs/cover-up affair.

        You're also accusing the judicial system of being political too. Accusations of being politically correct may apply, but that applies to all parties, except perhaps those at the margins.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @12:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @12:20PM (#1213563)

    hmmm...if only someone where responsible for children that, as we all know, blosome in spring, mature and drop from branches in autumn ...

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @02:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @02:23PM (#1213577)

    Quick we need a diversion to cover the scandal of all of Boris covid-drinking-parties at 10 Downing!

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @06:45PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @06:45PM (#1213624)

    "The aim of the campaign is to relay a message that end-to-end encryption could hamper efforts to curb child exploitation online.

    "We have engaged M&C Saatchi to bring together the many organizations who share our concerns about the impact end-to-end encryption would have on our ability to keep children safe," a Home Office spokesperson told Rolling Stone in a statement. "

    The same UK gov that has been letting Pakistani muslims kidnap, rape and sell over 100k White/UK girls and helped cover it up in some cases. Time for UK men to take back their country before it's too late. Make the politicians more scared of you than the muslims and the Jews that brought them in.

    • (Score: 2, Redundant) by PiMuNu on Tuesday January 18, @06:59PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 18, @06:59PM (#1213630)

      No, that was Labour party so entirely the other side.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal [wikipedia.org]

      In May 2014 there were 63 elected members on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council: 57 Labour, four Conservatives, one UKIP and one Independent.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @08:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @08:09PM (#1213651)

      Hi apk, take your meds plzkthx.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @07:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, @07:12PM (#1213637)

    Just like a kid will do the oppisite of the parenet wishes.

    So will the public. So everyone now knows end to end encryption is good thing.

    Be very careful of what you wish for.

  • (Score: 2) by JustNiz on Wednesday January 19, @05:56AM (2 children)

    by JustNiz (1573) on Wednesday January 19, @05:56AM (#1213788)

    Every time governments remove another freedom the excuse is pretty much always always some variant of "think of the children".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @12:16PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @12:16PM (#1213824)

      Now it's "think of public health."

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @11:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @11:04PM (#1213987)

        What "freedoms" are being taken away here?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @08:51AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @08:51AM (#1213809)

    After a long, difficult, very loud fight, encryption and the people and freedom and people's rights and privacy and so on will win. Some fuck closed-source app will have 9956385 bits quantum unbreakable encryption.

    And Facebook will continue to give all your data, including this "b2b encrypted" stuff to the government or otherwise sell it to whomever pays or just lose it to some hackers. But people will feel safe about it all.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @11:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, @11:07PM (#1213988)

      And Facebook will continue to give all your data, including this "b2b encrypted" stuff to the government or otherwise sell it to whomever pays or just lose it to some hackers.

      Yes, but the Zucker will feel real bad about it and apologize and promise that they will strive to be better in the future.

(1)