I have seen some of the inside of this and it's not quite as clear cut.

One side of this is driven by a bunch of not too reputable think tanks behind the scenes who persuaded a couple of fringe academics to agree with them and push for it via the civil service. The government is taking bad, paid for advice. I don't know what the agenda is there but there is one and I reckon it's commercial. Probably a consortium of businesses wanting to create a market they can get into.

However the security services do not agree with the government or the think tanks and actually promote advice contrary to the regulators. They will ultimately win.

Attacking the regulators and revealing who is behind all this is what we should be doing.

▲

gib444 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> They will ultimately win.

Sorry, who will win?

▲

ktallett 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This comment is a little unclear.

However no matter what the government or security services want, they won't be able to stop people who want to use VPN or End to end encryption. Nothing would ever change in that regard.

▲

cryo32 an hour ago | parent [-]

The technology bit doesn't really matter though.

The real problem is that the legislation would bring the power to prosecute people who use them or use it against them.

The security services aren't having any of that shit because it puts their position at risk both from the front-facing side and recommendations and guidance issued and from their own operations.

▲

ktallett an hour ago | parent [-]

The power to prosecute and the actual ability to prosecute are two different things. They currently can't prosecute CSAM offences nor piracy due to capacity. It won't happen.

	▲	cryo32 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well true but wait until you do something else and they pile that on top of it.

▲

MagicMoonlight an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Bullshit. GCHQ loves new ways to spy. Being able to harvest all traffic is their dream. I’m sure they already do harvest it all.

If they cared about privacy and security they wouldn’t be [redacted].

▲

cryo32 an hour ago | parent [-]

Their job is also to secure national infrastructure. Compromising that through policy would do more damage.

▲

fartfeatures an hour ago | parent [-]

There has always been tension in this area. A prime example is Dual_EC_DRBG https://harvardnsj.org/2022/06/07/dueling-over-dual_ec_drgb-...

	▲	cryo32 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Oh definitely. There's two sides to the coin always.