> So, technical people are supposed to "just follow orders"?
No, just be honest about technical matters. You can refuse to publish your software entirely or ideally in this case, make it available only outside the UK and let UK users seek it out on their own or use vpns. You can also protest the measure and try to prevent the law from being passed on ideological grounds.
> on the contrary, I have a moral duty to make it as hard as possible for them to do that.
So long as you are not being dishonest because then why would anyone trust you with anything else. You can comply with laws by doing it well or simply refuse to participate in publishing software there. What is happening now is they want to publish software there but refuse to obey the law of the land. What kind of law do you get to follow, only when you agree with it?
> We'll see how much of the public still supports all this stuff when the "for CSAM only, pinky promise" tech will start being routinely used to bust them for stuff like drug use.
That's sort of my point. You can disagree with it ideologically, saying it will be abused. But if the people trust the government and think preventing CSAM is more important then it is their right to self-determine and find out for themeselves and repeal the law later on. You are not the people's nanny, they made their bed.
Perhaps we can talk about phones without app stores and OSes people can use whatever unbackdooree app they want then?
> Alright, technical argument here. This is false and tech talking heads are spreading this lie for ideological reasons.
That is not true. The "lie" is that if you allow a back channel into secure communications then you cannot be sure who will use it. You have gone from trusting the other party (whom you probably know) to trusting them and a third party, who's identity is a bit of a mystery.
> You don't need to backdoor the protocol, just the specific targeted client.
Somebody else has pointed out this is nonsense. It makes no difference. Whilst it is a fact, it is also a lie. Well done.
> Signal can scan messages before encryption and report to the authorities just fine.
That too is a lie. Signal offers secure communications. If it scans messages and sends hem to third parties that is not "Signal", that is something else.
> Whatever the UK government desires, Signal should accept it as the will of the UK people
Extraordinarily naive about the habits, morals, and actions of the English state. That is so untrue it transcends "lie".
> I don't know UK law...
No shit!
> ...but dragnet surveillance is illegal in the US but targeted warrantful requests to backdoor apps is lawful.
Not under English law. There are no rights, as Americans know them, under English law. There are statutes, that can be changed at any time if the Lords agree, and over time if they do not
> Find a better way for govs to have an advantage against CSAM and other boogeymen
Constant surveillance of all people at all times. A camera in every bathroom, In general every bedroom. My point is a line must be drawn somewhere. The English, and Australian, states do not care at all for the personal liberty of the subjects of the English crown. Some very good people in England doing very good work, but the state there is very deep.
> That is not true. The "lie" is that if you allow a back channel into secure communications then you cannot be sure who will use it. You have gone from trusting the other party (whom you probably know) to trusting them and a third party, who's identity is a bit of a mystery.
No one is asking that! The communication channel is untampered. The app is where the backdoor is, before the communication channel.
> Somebody else has pointed out this is nonsense. It makes no difference. Whilst it is a fact, it is also a lie. Well done
Bullshit! You damn well know it does! A network adversary and an ondevice adversary are completely different. If you don't know that, you are clueless or a liar. There is security in transit and security on device. The backdoor applies to on device security before any transport crypto is applied. This is the same as your keyboard app being backdoored or a rat infecting your phone.
> That too is a lie. Signal offers secure communications. If it scans messages and sends hem to third parties that is not "Signal", that is something else
You know, just because you say words, that doesn't mean they mean things. How can that possibly in a logical universe be a lie when I said "can"? Are you claiming Signal by law would be forced to change its name or disband if it started scanning messages before encryption? Would there be a tear in timespace if that happened? Please do explained why I was called a liar for pointing out that possibility.
> Extraordinarily naive about the habits, morals, and actions of the English state. That is so untrue it transcends "lie".
Wth does that even mean. Are you saying corporations in the UK do not have to folloe the law or can pick and choose what laws to follow?
I think yours and others problem is you don't get the absurdity of companies acting as if they were individual participants in political discourse. They are not. They have no right. Companies don't vote, they have privileges and reaponsibilities and never rights of any kind.
> There are statutes, that can be changed at any time if the Lords agree, and over time if they do not
I hope that applies to companies too?
> Constant surveillance of all people at all times. A camera in every bathroom, In general every bedroom. My point is a line must be drawn somewhere.
At no point did I disagree with that. I have refused to visit the UK multiple times because of the nightmarish CCTV surveillance there. I do not agree with what they are doing but I disagree that civil disobedience can be invoked every time a law you disagree is passed, especially when tech people like you are lying about what is and isn't possible instead of boycotting the UK market or finding alternate solutions to CSAM abuse and other tech abuses and also when the government's actions will materially and provably reduce actual harm but mass surveillance has no actual proven and physical harm to anyone. I am all ears for solutions and I do not support mass surveillance but don't pretend your human right was violated when you don't even need to use smartphones (or rather smartphone and tech dependency itself is the violation of rights).
Why? The other side isn't playing fair by any metric.
> What kind of law do you get to follow, only when you agree with it?
I don't particularly care about "dura lex sed lex", so - all of them. Of course, if you get caught, that's unfortunate - but ethics and law are two different things, and in my book the former always wins when they are in conflict. I believe that it's always moral to break unjust laws, and it's always moral to help other people to do so.
> But if the people trust the government and think preventing CSAM is more important then it is their right to self-determine
"The people" are not a singular entity with rights. Even if there's a majority that wants this, it's not "their right" morally - not when it imposes surveillance on the rest of us. They will do it anyway, of course, because the most fundamental principle of any government is that might makes right. But I don't intend to make it any easier for them, majority or not. Let them work hard for every such law they pass, and then work even harder trying to deal with all the tech that makes those laws so difficult to enforce.
> Why? The other side isn't playing fair by any metric.
Because now I know you are full of shit. Everything you touch is sus now.
> I believe that it's always moral to break unjust laws, and it's always moral to help other people to do so.
Are unjust laws just laws you don't like? Are you saying it is a violation of your religion?
> "The people" are not a singular entity with rights. Even if there's a majority that wants this, it's not "their right" morally - not when it imposes surveillance on the rest of us
You are living under rule of law. If you don't like the rules, vote or get a gun. The victims of CSAM and many other crimes disagree with you. So why should your surveillance worries trump their actual victimization concerns? Instead of solving that, you lie and deceive politicians to keep the status quo and pretend you are the one fighting for justice.
> Let them work hard for every such law they pass, and then work even harder trying to deal with all the tech that makes those laws so difficult to enforce.
Yes they should work hard but if all of you tech people are a bunch of liars the you no longer get to claim how clueless politicians are on tech law, because when they turned to you for technical advice, you lied!
> Are unjust laws just laws you don't like? Are you saying it is a violation of your religion?
Unjust laws are those that, upon evaluating them from a moral perspective, are found unjust. This is inherently subjective, of course, as is all morality. I am an atheist.
> You are living under rule of law. If you don't like the rules, vote or get a gun.
The laws I am living under are imposed on me without my consent, so why should I consider them binding? If you don't like me breaking your rules, catch me breaking them - if you can.
> The victims of CSAM and many other crimes disagree with you. So why should your surveillance worries trump their actual victimization concerns?
Because the scale of surveillance enabled by these laws exceeds the scale of CSAM by many orders of magnitude.
> when they turned to you for technical advice
They didn't. What they want is for us to rubber-stamp their desired solution, with CSAM as an excuse. I'm treating them accordingly.
No, just be honest about technical matters. You can refuse to publish your software entirely or ideally in this case, make it available only outside the UK and let UK users seek it out on their own or use vpns. You can also protest the measure and try to prevent the law from being passed on ideological grounds.
> on the contrary, I have a moral duty to make it as hard as possible for them to do that.
So long as you are not being dishonest because then why would anyone trust you with anything else. You can comply with laws by doing it well or simply refuse to participate in publishing software there. What is happening now is they want to publish software there but refuse to obey the law of the land. What kind of law do you get to follow, only when you agree with it?
> We'll see how much of the public still supports all this stuff when the "for CSAM only, pinky promise" tech will start being routinely used to bust them for stuff like drug use.
That's sort of my point. You can disagree with it ideologically, saying it will be abused. But if the people trust the government and think preventing CSAM is more important then it is their right to self-determine and find out for themeselves and repeal the law later on. You are not the people's nanny, they made their bed.
Perhaps we can talk about phones without app stores and OSes people can use whatever unbackdooree app they want then?