UK Gov't Plans Publicity Blitz To Undermine Privacy of Your Chats (rollingstone.com) 53
The UK government is set to launch a multi-pronged publicity attack on end-to-end encryption, Rolling Stone has learned. From the report: One key objective: mobilizing public opinion against Facebook's decision to encrypt its Messenger app. The Home Office has hired the M&C Saatchi advertising agency -- a spin-off of Saatchi and Saatchi, which made the "Labour Isn't Working" election posters, among the most famous in UK political history -- to plan the campaign, using public funds. According to documents reviewed by Rolling Stone, one the activities considered as part of the publicity offensive is a striking stunt -- placing an adult and child (both actors) in a glass box, with the adult looking "knowingly" at the child as the glass fades to black. Multiple sources confirmed the campaign was due to start this month, with privacy groups already planning a counter-campaign.
Oh No . . . (Score:2)
According to documents reviewed by Rolling Stone, one the activities considered as part of the publicity offensive is a striking stunt -- placing an adult and child (both actors) in a glass box, with the adult looking "knowingly" at the child as the glass fades to black.
IIRC, that's the one thing thing we didn't want to happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"So, was the creepy adult in the advertisement Prince Andrew?"
He was outprinced, the Duke of York is now the dude from York.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately Prince is a hereditary thing, so that's the one bit he doesn't lose. Unlike Harry who committed the ultimate crime of simply wanting to go his own way and not do royal duties, Andrew still also gets tax payer funded police protection too.
Frankly it's quite telling that the Queen and the media treated someone far more harshly for not wanting to do royal duties anymore than they did a kiddie rapist. Really shows where the Royal Family's priorities are.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as we can tell the Virginia Giuffre was above the age of consent. At least it is 16 in London and New York and she was 17 at the time. There is a lack of detail on exactly where Epstien's private island is and what the age of consent is there so that might have been rape depending on the exact dates of the alleged crime. Also by Giuffre's own admission in interviews she has give, she to Prince Andrew consented to sex but her argument is that he should have somehow known she was being coerced by someo
Re: (Score:2)
"At least it is 16 in London and New York and she was 17 at the time. There is a lack of detail on exactly where Epstien's private island is and what the age of consent is there so that might have been rape depending on the exact dates of the alleged crime."
It doesn't matter if you transport them over state lines to have sex with them is another, different crime.
But will they...? (Score:1)
Will they give up police radio encryption for that?
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing wrong with two sets of rules. It does matter a great deal which set is supposed to apply to whom.
Transparency is generally regarded as a good thing for governments so the governed can see what's going on, and check that everyone is getting dealt with fairly. Privacy is generally regarded as a good thing for private persons because no privacy (ie, full transparency) is psychologically damaging.
Of course, the people running the show don't want to have to show their cards while they're up to no good
If end to end encryption is bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So criminals can be caught even if using end-to-end encryption. That's good, normal people can continue to use it then.
Re: (Score:1)
False, both were using devices with the normal encryption we all use. Read the details of cases before commenting, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
"So criminals can be caught even if using end-to-end encryption. "
But then policemen have to go out in the rain!
Re: (Score:2)
But recently two CNN producers were arrested for child sex crimes. And slashdot keeps posting CNN stories.
What relationship is it you believe the first thing has, or should have, to the second, exactly?
Add even more backdoors (Score:3)
Also who knows how often these backdoors were exploited by foreign adversaries. Not like they are going to announce themselves
The Assumption (Score:2)
The assumption being that law enforcement is free of pedophiles, which it most definitely not.
Re: (Score:3)
The stupid bit being if they REALLY wanted to absolutely protect kids from internet predators, then they'd just ban minors from using the internet all together unless being actively supervised by a responsible adult and provide the same sort of penalties one gets for something like providing alcohol to minors.
And that doesn't even get into the probable side benefits of sparing kids cyber-bullying and just the general bad effects of social media and the like.
The problem there of course is that parents love t
Keep kids off internet [Re:The Assumption] (Score:2)
The stupid bit being if they REALLY wanted to absolutely protect kids from internet predators, then they'd just ban minors from using the internet all together ...
There are people who advocate for that, yes
Re: (Score:2)
There are people who advocate for that, yes
You can take the thinking everywhere it can go...
People should have a license to use the internet. You cannot get this license until you are 16. At the age of 15 you can get a learners permit and use the internet so long as a licensed internet user is there with you.
Here is a simple, easy, British solution to this p (Score:3)
Paedophiles no longer get easy remote access to children on end-to-end encrypted communication services but everyone gains more privacy and security as a result, while futur
Re: (Score:3)
The stupid bit being if they REALLY wanted to absolutely protect kids from internet predators, then they'd just ban minors from using the internet all together unless being actively supervised by a responsible adult and provide the same sort of penalties one gets for something like providing alcohol to minors.
I've got to admit I like that idea.
Kids today are mostly stuck to phones and tablets, not exercising, always near focusing, always pushed towards instant gratification and toxic influencers. This has to be causing lasting mental and physical damage.
Re: (Score:2)
And big corporations love the money they get from the kids.
Proving that public servants (Score:2)
Will that be from Mintrue or Minpax? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No kidding, these days if a politician, large corporation or a government agency puts out ads, in most cases you need to assume the exact opposite is the truth.
I have been noticing this for a while and the trend is accelerating.
If this was just about protecting kids ... (Score:2)
this might, just about, be something that I would agree to. However the snooping will be about a lot more, lots of things that the adverts will not mention. So the adverts will be deception - but that is just what we expect from the current UK government. Not that others are any better in this respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how little trust there is in the government these days, I wonder if it will backfire.
It's bound to be mocked mercilessly. Could become the new "you wouldn't download a car".
Re: (Score:2)
So the adverts will be deception - but that is just what we expect from
any advert, even if it says based on actual facts.
Ok (Score:2)
Then publish ALL government officials and employees private communications for the public to examine. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If they have nothing to hide, then they should have no problem. That is the logic, right? Fuck you.
Democracy (Score:1)
This is democracy; make your case to the people, no?
But they are LYING!!!
...you will say. Ok, hang them on their lies. If you can't then maybe they're not actually lies but just things you don't like said out loud.
But they are FEAR MONGERING!!!
...you will say. Except that fear mongering is pretty much the entire modus operandi of everything now a days. If you can rationalize locking down the whole world and instituting a biosecurity state complete with 'papers please' passports you can't now argue that fear mongering is a public policy problem.
When yo
"Your chats?" (Score:2)
Even portraying this as just being about "your chats" is a deception in itself, this can affect anything that uses or could use end-to-end encryption, freezing computer security in the past. They want everything to stop at decrypted central repositories they can easily tap and peruse through for surveillance purposes like it's 1999. It's not the first time they've wanted to slam computer security into reverse and likely won't be the last.
For our friends in the UK: Hope this helps! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So that's why they left the EU. (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess they no longer have to bother with the EU's privacy laws, and can just campaign on breaking them.
Re: (Score:3)
"I guess they no longer have to bother with the EU's privacy laws, and can just campaign on breaking them."
It's all part of Operation Big Dog, to deflect from all the illegal parties Boris took part, the lying to Parliament, the breaking of laws.... (he thinks of himself as a big dog, go figure)
Re: (Score:3)
The UK police already tried to push genetic fingerprinting the entire population. They were prevented.
Heathrow airport terminal 5 tried to fingerprint every single passenger. They were prevented.
The UK government pushed to implement permanent house arrest without trail for terrorist suspects, no evidence required. They got this.
There are signs the UK government routinely intercepts and presumably analyses just about anything going over the internet.
It's not just EU privacy laws that were stabilizing the UK,
Re: (Score:3)
Nobdy is trustworthy (Score:2)
Govt plans != action (Score:4, Interesting)
For non UK readers, the current shower are looking for ANYTHING that they can say which (a) appeals to their right wing and /or (b) causes outrage. They're making all sorts of noises in all sorts of directions at the moment.
Why?
To distract attention away from the numerous parties and drinks sessions held in Downing Street whilst lock-down procedures were in place. Apparently, "work meetings" there required many people and wine to be brought in by the suitcase full. At the same time, people were being denied last visits to dying relatives and students fined for meeting in a park.
Not a great advert for government responsibility - much outrage about "one rule for us and another for them". Comments on wine fuelled meetings explaining the quality of decision making etc.
With the record of announcements turning into actions, the likely timescale and other fiascoes in the pipeline, this is likely to be yet another Macbeth style proclamation (full of sound and fury, signifying nothing)
Accelerating (Score:2)
Authoritarian government (Score:2)
It's difficult to argue against 'bad things happen when no-one can see': Absolute privacy should be limited making it difficult to argue that no privacy is bad. The absence of privacy has consequences too: Stalking, which happens when there is no privacy. When the perpertator has massive resources, (eg. the government) it is unavoidable. Plus, once it's acceptable to eliminate private chats 'for the greater good', it's acceptable to excuse the slippery-slope into authoritarian government.
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to argue against 'bad things happen when no-one can see': Absolute privacy should be limited making it difficult to argue that no privacy is bad. The absence of privacy has consequences too: Stalking, which happens when there is no privacy. When the perpertator has massive resources, (eg. the government) it is unavoidable. Plus, once it's acceptable to eliminate private chats 'for the greater good', it's acceptable to excuse the slippery-slope into authoritarian government.
They say that human
Counter Ad (Score:2)
You show yours, then I'll show mine (Score:1)