Tech Companies Face Criminal Charges If They Notify Users of UK Government Spying (techspot.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Last week, Yahoo became the latest company promising to alert users who it suspected were being targeted by state-sponsored attacks (excepting Microsoft, who made a similar announcement just today). Twitter, Facebook and Google had previously assured their users that they would be warned of any potential government spying. The UK, it seems, isn't happy about this. They are pushing through a bill that will punish the leaders of any company that warns its users about British snooping with up to two years in prison. Specifically, UK ministers want to make it a criminal offense for tech firms to warn users of requests for access to their communication data made by security organizations such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
How is this any different to National Security Letters which the US uses broadly to the same effect? The UK just want the same...
Can the act of failing to communicate be construed as notifying users? For example, consider the case of TrueCrypt where the original developers announced that they would no longer be developing or maintaining TrueCrypt and "helpfully" suggested that users install Microsoft BitLocker instead? Now you're getting into layers of abstraction and how certain groups of people might interpret a communication or a lack of communication. Laws prohibiting communication are rarely effective, except perhaps in the short run and on a temporary basis, so it's hard to see how this law will be any more effective than previous failed attempts.
China is showing us one of the possible end games. Facebook is already patenting features along those lines. Combined with omnipresent spying, this "new" type of oppression will work. It's a terrifying future.
Dan Geer describes our situation as a cold civil war. It would be useful if more people recognized that.
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
There's more than one way to revolt. I agree that the "open warfare by flag waving troops" isn't going to happen. But what's far more likely is that, more and more, people simply... stop. They stop buying things other than necessities. They stop going out in the evenings. They no longer participate in society. No marriages. No offspring.
It looks like just another economic downturn at first. But there never seems to be an upturn again. Slowly, slowly, things just get a bit worse, and a bit worse, and a bit worse. Because people stop participating.
That's when governments will really go crazy. Because there's no leader of a resistance to arrest. None of those flag-waving troops to battle. There's nothing they can do. Can you make people go to the movies? Force bowling teams to form at the point of a bayonet? Demand people volunteer at the homeless food lines?
Societies build social capital over decades and hundreds of years. They can use up all that capital just as slowly, as people simply no longer give a damn. That's when things end, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
They no longer participate in society. No marriages. No offspring.
You think people are going to stop fucking because they are mad at politicians...? Or that people would cause their own economic downturn and willingly give up their jobs, and in turn food & shelter? Uhhh... No thanks.
Ever heard a phrase to the effect 'This is not a world I would want to bring a child into'?
Between abortions and contraceptives there is no need to stop having intercourse, just stop having babies. Without immigration, the population of 'first world' countries is already shrinking.
Also, the worse the economic climate, the more people will save their money against future problems. Not everyone, but those with discretionary income will be more inclined to save it up or put it somewhere safe as opposed to making more purchases or making riskier investments.
Have you heard the phrase 'jobless recovery' much in the last few years?
I doubt it is any sort of intentional protest, but if people do not have confidence in their leaders, they will tend to hold back.
(if you are stuck with the choice between Trump and Hillary, and the one you want least wins, will you celebrate by going out and buying a car?)