Mastodawn

Signal Apr 18, 2023

Our position remains clear. We will not back down on providing private, safe communications. We join with other encrypted messengers pushing back on the UK's flawed Online Safety Bill.

Show thread

Paul Wilde

:dontpanic_nobg:Apr 18, 2023

@signalapp This whole situations is bonkers in the UK, yet another display of how the government (and media for that matter) hugely misunderstands technology.
Sure, ban E2EE on BigApps (no, seriously, don't do this) but are they really going to come after me for running an E2EE enable Matrix/XMPP server that I use to communicate with others who also run their own servers? I don't think so.

To BigApps like you, @signalapp , I say do as @Tutanota say they will and simply not comply.
https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/uk-undermine-encryption

Dear Mr. Sunak, will you block access to encryption, just like Russia & Iran?

Tutanota: We will not 'walk out' of UK like Signal. Nor will we comply with any request to bypass our encryption.

Tutanota

Show thread

Michael Apr 18, 2023

@paul @Tutanota @signalapp this is quite a noble stance, but doesn’t this put them in the spotlight for fines / prosecution? the way i understand it, it’s a criminal offense to not be able to provide cleartext data to the uk ofcom. no one said blocking is the first or only method that the government is planning to crack down on them

Show thread

Paul Wilde

:dontpanic_nobg:

@mzhang @Tutanota @signalapp I agree, a fine may be threatened but I don't see any penalty being enforceable legally.
I was using blocking as an example, and to be honest I see this whole government debate going nowhere. Just a lot of noise for the sake of it.

is it really a criminal offense to not provide cleartext data to ofcom? OK, if the data is clear text already then OK. But are you saying a service provider has to decrypt encrypted data before sending it to ofcom if requested? Or is just sending the encrypted data acceptable?