End of Privacy and Security

[Viri]

End of privacy in the US was when Snowden risked everything to be a whistleblower and the general public collectively shrugged.

Spoiler

 

[shrekexists]

Spoiler

Those things in your signature can be looked up in China if you use a VPN and you can just go on Facebook or whatever too. It's similar to the UK where you can't view the entire internet anymore because of political reasons. Most people should probably have a good https or ssh vpn. openssh is good Canadian code and it's already quantum computer resistant and fully auditable. If I was in the UK or China I would be connecting to another country for internet. It's a crime for me to say abolish the monarchy in the UK online and even if you're not prosecuted it's still a criminal act. Just like I can't say abolish the single party state in China. A VPN solves both. I would be suprised if the UK block list doesn't become mandatory it would be pretty bizzare and viewed as autocratic by most if such a law was in Canada. ISP here just don't serve CSAM without a law so what the UK says about needing it to protect children is clearly a lie. I don't know how someone would technically block csam and it be true without having a North Korean style intranet with manually approved content. It's possible the people drafting these bills have that mindset for what the internet should look like or it's possible they just don't know all that much about networking and someone told them it gets rid of it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/po...ers-ahead-king-charles-coronation-2023-05-06/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

God save the king.

 

[Marc_LFD]

Whatever happened to their Digital ID system? No one's spoke about it in months.



This isn't conservative at all.

 

[shrekexists]

Whatever happened to their Digital ID system? No one's spoke about it in months.



This isn't conservative at all.

Conservative for the UK would be forced sex change hormone therapy for gay people like they did to the guy who invented digital computers. Canada inherited the UK's reeducation policies for so called savages and it was a shit show full of pedophiles and murderers. We are only independent since the 1980's so the UK was in charge of Canada during the reeducation. I'm not sure digital identity is any less private than having a SIN my concern with it is they won't allow security updates so there will be mass identity theft from phones to take out loans. If i could I would live without my SIN and these backdoored operating systems. There's 100% chance Trojans like Pegasus will copy and paste your digital ID if they can or get as much from it as they can if it's in a TPM or something.
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/sin.html This is sin it's given to newborns and controls work and credit unofficially not just what's on that page. If i apply for anything related to loans or school I am asked to use it. These ID and stuff may seem normal but it's possible all of someones education and work and credit/debit records are all tied together in a government database. This would be without even having a government ID from a province which is like a state in the USA for people not from multi-national countries with provinces. Everyone in Canada usually has SIN, government ID/drivers license, and a public health insurance card so hospitals are free. I don't actually need SIN to prove my identity but I will be a second class citizen if I don't have it.

 

[trepp0]

Daily reminder that it is always morally correct to lie to corporations and governments. Real talk tho, this shit makes me so mad.

Post automatically merged: Aug 30, 2023

Conservative for the UK would be forced sex change hormone therapy for gay people like they did to the guy who invented digital computers. Canada inherited the UK's reeducation policies for so called savages and it was a shit show full of pedophiles and murderers. We are only independent since the 1980's so the UK was in charge of Canada during the reeducation. I'm not sure digital identity is any less private than having a SIN my concern with it is they won't allow security updates so there will be mass identity theft from phones to take out loans. If i could I would live without my SIN and these backdoored operating systems. There's 100% chance Trojans like Pegasus will copy and paste your digital ID if they can or get as much from it as they can if it's in a TPM or something.

What are You going on about?

 

[Marc_LFD]

Daily reminder that it is always morally correct to lie to corporations and governments. Real talk tho, this shit makes me so mad.

You remind me of checking out Black's Law dictionary as it has a different definition from the standard and that's one way of fighting back using their own system.

What is a Person?

Under law, it is an entity that is recognized as an individual that has rights in its existence, capable of suing and being sued, to enter into contracts, to appear in court as well as other powers that are generally available to any recognized entity under law. At times a person may also refer to a corporation.

What is Dead?

Something which has no life; figuratively, something of no value.

What is Money?

Gold, silver, and some other less precious metals, in the progress of civilization and commerce, have become the common standards of value; in order to avoid the delay and inconvenience of regulating their weight and quality whenever passed, the governments of the civilized world have caused them to be manufactured in certain portions, and marked with a Stamp which attests their value; this is called money. 2. For many purposes, bank notes; a check; and negotiable notes; will be so considered. To support a count for money had and received, the receipt by the defendant of bank notes, promissory notes: credit in account, in the books of a third person; 3 Campb. 199; or any chattel, is sufficient; and will be treated as money. 3. The constitution of the United States has vested in congress the power to coin money, and regulate the value thereof. Art. 1, s. 8. 4. By virtue of this constitutional authority, the following provisions have been enacted by congress.

These definitions kind of rub me the wrong way, like dead. I get it, but that's kinda messed up if you talk about a person like that.

 

[shrekexists]

Daily reminder that it is always morally correct to lie to corporations and governments. Real talk tho, this shit makes me so mad.

Post automatically merged: Aug 30, 2023

What are You going on about?

I was showing how absurd it would be if the UK actually conserved their values from the past 69 years and giving my technical opinion on the proposed UK digital ID system and how it compares to how Canada does government ID and why it's less secure while not necessarily being more oppressive.

You remind me of checking out Black's Law dictionary as it has a different definition from the standard and that's one way of fighting back using their own system.

What is a Person?



What is Dead?



What is Money?



These definitions kind of rub me the wrong way, like dead. I get it, but that's kinda messed up if you talk about a person like that.

Just use the word human instead of person. If i defined money and dead from the ancestral way and was believed the world would end.

 

[Anxiety_timmy]

" BuT IF YoU hAVe NOThiNG tO HiDE ThEN iT DOeNt MaTtER

This is the excuse my family constantly uses when I bring this up in conversation and jesus christ is it annoying.

 

[Marc_LFD]

Just use the word human instead of person. If i defined money and dead from the ancestral way and was believed the world would end.

It's not an antique dictionary, it's like a corporate dictionary.

 

[shrekexists]

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/arch/x86/shstk.html
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/log/?h=x86/shstk
This feature was apparently missed in 6.5 and is still on a release candidate of it and in linux-next but regardless this is security technology the UK law will require government approval to implement on a global scale. In theory if say Intel sells a processor in the UK and it's the same as sold in North America the UK would be governing how computers work in Canada or the United States for example. I don't know why this feature and security updates would require government approval other than for them to send Trojans to people. They in effect are turning home computers and phones into global weapons of oppression that will be used to kill people as Pegasus type malware will become a lot more powerful without patches and new hardware mitigation's for flaws. Pegasus type Trojans allow lay people to just type in account identifiers like a Facebook id or phone number to automatically hack devices without notifying the user at all. It would be like you could run homebrew on a switch or ps5 by just having the PSN or switch online email type stuff except it's some random malicious entity that wants to record everything it can about you.

 

[Deleted member 571007]

In theory if say Intel sells a processor in the UK and it's the same as sold in North America the UK would be governing how computers work in Canada or the United States for example.

Probably not how it'd work for Intel in your example. They're headquartered in the US and all their major manufacturing plants are also in the US. If more guidelines were imposed upon them (such as not patching the vulnerabilities) they'd be less inclined to ship their products to the UK unless convinced otherwise. Since the majority of those items from Intel are manufactured in the US, why would the UK have any say about how something overseas is made?

If you wanna get even more technical, the company barely relies on anything resource wise from the UK either, so manufacturing could still remain completely independent as most of their raw materials are sourced Asia.

Using your specific example, the only way the UK would have any say on products from Intel, was if they were either manufactured in the UK, or being imported (as they'd have to abide by their guidelines). Corporations however, scarcely like restrictions- so more than likely they'll limit exports to them.

By-and-large this basically only affects companies and consumers inside of the UK. Anything outside has the resources to work around it.

This isn't to say that the situation isn't a total shit-show. Because it definitely is. To stop the patching of vulnerabilities is to shoot the very ideal of security in the face, and to rub salt in the wound they act like they're doing the people a service. The silver lining though is that changes likes these are rarely ever implemented in such a short amount of time. Maybe the idiocy of the decision will be realized before too long.

 

[shrekexists]

Probably not how it'd work for Intel in your example. They're headquartered in the US and all their major manufacturing plants are also in the US. If more guidelines were imposed upon them (such as not patching the vulnerabilities) they'd be less inclined to ship their products to the UK unless convinced otherwise. Since the majority of those items from Intel are manufactured in the US, why would the UK have any say about how something overseas is made?

If you wanna get even more technical, the company barely relies on anything resource wise from the UK either, so manufacturing could still remain completely independent as most of their raw materials are sourced Asia.

Using your specific example, the only way the UK would have any say on products from Intel, was if they were either manufactured in the UK, or being imported (as they'd have to abide by their guidelines). Corporations however, scarcely like restrictions- so more than likely they'll limit exports to them.

By-and-large this basically only affects companies and consumers inside of the UK. Anything outside has the resources to work around it.

This isn't to say that the situation isn't a total shit-show. Because it definitely is. To stop the patching of vulnerabilities is to shoot the very ideal of security in the face, and to rub salt in the wound they act like they're doing the people a service. The silver lining though is that changes likes these are rarely ever implemented in such a short amount of time. Maybe the idiocy of the decision will be realized before too long.

They would have to leave the UK completely to not be affected by it along with all the other major tech companies. It's very unlikely this will happen with publicly traded companies legally bound to make as much money as possible.

 

[Deleted member 571007]

It's very unlikely this will happen with publicly traded companies legally bound to make as much money as possible.

Yet with this decision they'd be losing more money if they stayed, than if they left.

 

[shrekexists]

Yet with this decision they'd be losing more money if they stayed, than if they left.

I would prefer if you are right but there's 67+ million in the UK so that's a lot of money from software and hardware they would loose if there wasn't a mass boycott that cost more than they lost.

 

[Deleted member 571007]

I would prefer if you are right but there's 67+ million in the UK so that's a lot of money from software and hardware they would loose if there wasn't a mass boycott that cost more than they lost.

It's not even about the profit they can gain from consumers at that point. It's the fact that if they leave vulnerabilities like that open on purpose other people will find them, and exploit them. Not just the government. Due to this, companies that utilize their parts, will in the future refuse to do so as they can't be guaranteed safety.

If you were a company making a device to sell to people, would you willingly choose to include parts from a company that purposely puts backdoors into their hardware? If you say no, others will too because that's a risk to their own investment. Regardless of the potential profit from average consumers, by and large companies would avoid using anything that can compromise their product.

No one wins in a situation like this. Consumers get worse products, companies lose money, and everyone's left with unsecure devices. What's the logical choice in a situation like that? Stop using those products. That results in a net-loss for the company. They gain nothing from this, so unless they have no other choice why would they go along with it?

 

[shrekexists]

It's not even about the profit they can gain from consumers at that point. It's the fact that if they leave vulnerabilities like that open on purpose other people will find them, and exploit them. Not just the government. Due to this, companies that utilize their parts, will in the future refuse to do so as they can't be guaranteed safety.

If you were a company making a device to sell to people, would you willingly choose to include parts from a company that purposely puts backdoors into their hardware? If you say no, others will too because that's a risk to their own investment. Regardless of the potential profit from average consumers, by and large companies would avoid using anything that can compromise their product.

No one wins in a situation like this. Consumers get worse products, companies lose money, and everyone's left with unsecure devices. What's the logical choice in a situation like that? Stop using those products. That results in a net-loss for the company. They gain nothing from this, so unless they have no other choice why would they go along with it?

I hope you're right. I just mostly anticipate them just following the UK law worldwide and pretending it didn't pass and counting on tech illiteracy. I'm not sure what to say about backdoored hardware if I was allowed none of my desktop processors would have cache shared with hyper threads due to major security issues in the past. I'm also one of those people who uses the ALT disable bit on my management engine. I like the idea of the management engine but it's not open source so it doesn't have any features I need and can't do better with other hardware.

 

[mituzora]

It's not even about the profit they can gain from consumers at that point. It's the fact that if they leave vulnerabilities like that open on purpose other people will find them, and exploit them. Not just the government. Due to this, companies that utilize their parts, will in the future refuse to do so as they can't be guaranteed safety.

If you were a company making a device to sell to people, would you willingly choose to include parts from a company that purposely puts backdoors into their hardware? If you say no, others will too because that's a risk to their own investment. Regardless of the potential profit from average consumers, by and large companies would avoid using anything that can compromise their product.

No one wins in a situation like this. Consumers get worse products, companies lose money, and everyone's left with unsecure devices. What's the logical choice in a situation like that? Stop using those products. That results in a net-loss for the company. They gain nothing from this, so unless they have no other choice why would they go along with it?

Exactly, this isn't going to change the way the whole world views security. Best-case scenario: because while yes, the UK is large, it's a small footnote compared to the rest of the world, companies will start shipping specific parts and channels to the UK and then sell the rest of their whole product to the rest of the security-aware world. this has already happened in a similar fashion with WIndows N releases where they don't ship with specific software due to regulations. Worst-Case scenario, these companies will pull out of the UK entirely and no longer support them. The rest of the world isn't dumb enough to prevent security measures from being applied to their software and hardware. And companies aren't going to simply die if they stop shipping stuff to the UK, they already have the other massive markets that do accept said security measures.

 

[shrekexists]

Exactly, this isn't going to change the way the whole world views security. Best-case scenario: because while yes, the UK is large, it's a small footnote compared to the rest of the world, companies will start shipping specific parts and channels to the UK and then sell the rest of their whole product to the rest of the security-aware world. this has already happened in a similar fashion with WIndows N releases where they don't ship with specific software due to regulations. Worst-Case scenario, these companies will pull out of the UK entirely and no longer support them. The rest of the world isn't dumb enough to prevent security measures from being applied to their software and hardware. And companies aren't going to simply die if they stop shipping stuff to the UK, they already have the other massive markets that do accept said security measures.

"The IPA purports to apply extraterritorially, permitting the Home Office to assert that it may impose secret requirements on providers located in other countries and that apply to their users globally." - Apple's teams of lawyers

If this law passes and any of these companies are in the UK at all they are compromised and you should not use tech from them. There is not going to be a special edition of windows it will be even the US English version type impact. Companies don't always care about where they are from a good example is Intel telling China about meltdown and specter before the USA.

 

[Marc_LFD]

They want to invade people's privacy to somehow stop terrorism? That's bullshit.

People who fall for that lie will fall for anything.

If the U.K. cared about terrorism they'd not allow boats of migrant men to freely enter their country/island and reward them for doing so.



Oh no they're bored and unhappy.

 

[supermist]

If you were genuinely concerned about your privacy and information you simply wouldn't use the internet at all.