US , UK , Australia and most of the world are just doing what Rothschild , Soros , Klaus Schwab and company are telling them to do. World Economic Forum Great Reset
If youâre going to talk about politicians getting controlled by someone else, please provide sources for such claims. Otherwise the discussion is likely to devolve in pointless name calling. Iâll remove such posts in the future.
Iâm sure there are a lot of accusations to make here for which you can find reliable sources.
Hereâs a start. Just pay attention to covid related mandate lockdown government control going on in FRONT of your own eyes!
Is this related to the anti-encryption campaign?
No just the way the world is going now. 1984 Orwell Animal Farm etc
The public performance described in the article, with the adult, (surely to be portrayed by a âperverted-lookingâ male), and the child, will unfortunately be very effective with Joe and Jane Citizen.
There needs to be some kind of response-in-kind from privacy rights groups, maybe depicting a man sending a text from his phone to a nearby person, while a crowd of perverted-looking people and police stare over their shoulders reading every word.
As Iâm not in the UK, my opinion shouldnât count for much but âŚ
In my country particularly, what matters is what legislation gets passed and we have seen that what Joe and Jane Citizen think is completely ignored by the government anyway (so no need for PR campaigns). The government will pass what it can get through the parliament.
Iâm not so convinced that UK Joe and Jane Citizen will care either way. The article says
One key slide notes that âmost of the public have never heardâ of end-to-end encryption â adding that this means âpeople can be easily swayedâ on the issue.
J&JC have never heard of it, donât understand the implications, their eyes glaze over (encryption blah blah blah), they tune out.
On top of that, since it is largely transparent to the user, J&JC have no idea for any online messaging whether it is a) completely insecure b) partly secure but insecure inside the server c) most secure (end-to-end encrypted). Why should you care when you arenât going to know anyway if Facebook operated end-to-end encryption only on odd-numbered days?
My guess is that the government will only be able to get a small number of UK citizens to start harassing Facebook not to introduce end-to-end encryption and that could easily be matched by the same number of UK citizens harassing Facebook to ignore the âfraudulentâ claims of the government and to go ahead and introduce end-to-end encryption.
As always, there are additional factors. I would imagine that without end-to-end encryption, Facebook is being continuously hit by law enforcement (in the UK and elsewhere) to provide a feed of a targetâs âprivateâ messaging. So Facebook has an incentive to take itself out of the loop by introducing end-to-end encryption and, conversely, law enforcement has partly created the problem for itself.
One complication is that end-to-end encryption requires the two ends to agree to use it. So it is not trivial to make this a user setting.
A different approach would be for Facebook to make the Facebook app have the option to feed all your private messaging direct to law enforcement. (Even with end-to-end encryption, it is not secure if one of the endpoints is compromised.) This would be the more honest approach. 
Thinking outside the box, would it make more sense for the UK government to engage in a PR campaign to persuade UK parents to get their kids off social media?
If the government canât keep the children safe on social media then not being on social media at all will provide the safety that the government canât provide, while also providing other benefits.
I know that in my country, responsible parents do consider carefully what age is an appropriate age to allow their kids on social media.
Not only would such a PR campaign put the onus back on parents but it would in a subtle way still put pressure on Facebook. Facebook doesnât really want to lose the opportunity to get the next generation of addicts.
But perhaps this is all âoff topicâ because the UK governmentâs campaign is not really about the safety of children at all but is instead about ubersurveillance.
Which would be ironic because real text messages have never been end-to-end encrypted and probably never will be.
Except the text should be to the manâs wife and it should say âNORWICHâ. 
The crowd of perverted-looking people should include GCHQ and other government types. Maybe BoJo himself.
A cynic might wonder whether the timing of this campaign has more to do with the UK governmentâs repeated embarrassment over failing to comply with its own health orders, with BoJo himself coming under pressure to resign over his recently revealed partying.
Sources are not necessary for opinion. Are we banned, or potentially-banned from expressing opinion? 
The post in question was
a) wildly off-topic, and
b) had many of the red flags.
If you make factual claims (like âThe UK government is only doing this because <insert conspiracy theory target> directed them toâ) then, yes, you need to back that up with reputable sources.
But pleeeeeeeeeeeease letâs not derail the topic with metadiscussion.
Iâm getting an impression though, that this is precisely what they are aiming at. If not after the software makers, then they can go after server hosters. This has happened before with DNS, and torrent trackers. Iâm not seeing a reason why the attack on encryption would go any different.
The problem isnât proof, is prosecution.
âThe UK government is only doing this because directed them toâ
Sounds like opinion to me. Opinions that are essentially non-commercial click bait are easily ignored. In my experience, bans and knee jerk reactions are worse that the unwanted opinions. Maybe a twit filter would be more helpful.
Opinions are subjective and generally in the form of âI thinkâ âI like itâ, âthey shouldâ. âThey wantâ, âthey didâ is an objective, positive statement.
Regardless of what that is, itâs something that causes threads to go off-topic, as also briefly happened here.
I would also suggest to move the discussion about the moderation to another thread to keep this one focused.
On the face of it
a) they are not trying to force anyone to do anything - they are trying to shame / harass Facebook into doing something âvoluntarilyâ, and
b) they are only interested in mainstream social media platforms.
They arenât at this time looking to ban E2EE. It is entirely possible that if their campaign to harass Facebook into doing something âvoluntarilyâ fails in its goal then legislation could be forthcoming that forces Facebook to abandon E2EE. That still wouldnât be a blanket ban on E2EE.
Assuming that you are not a user of Facebook, whether you are sanguine about Facebookâs being forced to abandon E2EE could depend on how much the âfirst they came for the âŚâ / âslippery slopeâ argument resonates for you.
If it were me, I would not be sanguine - because putting the majority of âprivateâ messaging under surveillance is to the detriment of the whole society. So it is to my detriment even if not directly affecting me personally.
From what I understand of current UK legislation, you are âŚed anyway.
âŚputting the majority of âprivateâ messaging under surveillance is to the detriment of the whole society.
Sounds suspiciously like an objective, positive statement. Please state your sources. No, you may not use reason or logic, only external sources.
My source is Schneier, a person with recognised expertise in these matters. You can find him making comments along the lines of what I said in any number of places on the internet but I will pick this one: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2017/01/the-watchers because it cites actual underlying research [Penney], in addition to quoting Schneier.
Penneyâs work is the sort of evidence for negative social effects that scholars (and courts of law and @Photon) demand.
OK, itâs possible that I edited that quote and that you werenât referred to in the article. 
In truth, I was really expressing an opinion âif it were me, I would not be sanguineâ. That should make it clear that I am expressing how I feel about something i.e. ânot sanguineâ.
I donât see a major problem in challenging someone who is only expressing an opinion or feelings. Opinions and feelings can still have a factual basis, or not.
Opinion piece from The Register:
It depends whether you are focussing on
- the technical
- the legal
- the political.
Right now this is a political campaign. Itâs simple. They want to persuade Facebook not to offer E2EE. Noone is under any illusion whatsoever that that means that E2EE will not be available. People who insist on using E2EE will just go elsewhere (to other platforms).
Attacking E2EE politically is not easy ⌠because of apathy and because itâs a technical area and because there is a massive amount of cynicism about anything âgovernmentâ. Even half-decent government ad campaigns will be memed mercilessly.
There will nearly always be a substantial majority of negative comment (which may or may not be representative). I mean: people who see the ad and think âthatâs fairâ are less likely to comment than those who see the ad and think âthatâs BSâ.
Yep. Even worse than the UK, in part because there is such limited protection of human rights and protection from government overreach. Developers, servers, etc., particularly for product areas likely to attract government attention, should stay well away from Australia.
But maybe thatâs another topic.