Data Protection Act

[alchemist]

Now that it seems that Apple are threatening to remove iMessage and FaceTime in the UK.  Say what you like about these apps they will be joining the likes of WhatsApp and Signal in isolating the UK from some very useful apps.   I wonder if Microsoft will be announcing the Teams will also be going?

 

It seems that the government is determned to send us back to the 60's and we will soon all be writing letters again. 

 

Still, at least it might make the post office profitable!!

[andysm]

The government would be more than happy to have everyone writing letters, they can easily be intercepted and read.

[RollingJ]

31 minutes ago, alchemist said:

Now that it seems that Apple are threatening to remove iMessage and FaceTime in the UK.  Say what you like about these apps they will be joining the likes of WhatsApp and Signal in isolating the UK from some very useful apps.   I wonder if Microsoft will be announcing the Teams will also be going?

 

It seems that the government is determned to send us back to the 60's and we will soon all be writing letters again. 

 

Still, at least it might make the post office profitable!!

Source please? Makes it much easier to comment.

[andysm]

Lots of places reporting it, including the BBC:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66256081

[RollingJ]

7 minutes ago, andysm said:

Lots of places reporting it, including the BBC:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66256081

Cheers, @andysm. I see Apples (and other tech companies point) - typical Government 'sledgehammer to crack a nut  policies' in their uninformed attempt to 'make everybody safe', even though 99.99% of us already are.

[altus]

24 minutes ago, andysm said:

The government would be more than happy to have everyone writing letters, they can easily be intercepted and read.

They'd absolutely hate it. It would cost far too much to be practical. They'd go back to relying on targetted surveillance - which they should be doing now rather than trying to impose mass surveillance.

Edited July 21, 2023 by altus

[RollingJ]

Just now, altus said:

They'd absolutely hate it. It would cost far too much to be practical. They'd go back to relying on targetted surveillance.

Which they use now, anyway.

[altus]

2 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Which they use now, anyway.

I didn't say they didn't. The key word in that sentence was 'relying'.

 

They don't need to do mass surveillance. If they put a bit more effort/resources into human intelligence and less into trying to collect and analyse vast amounts of signals intelligence they might even get better results.

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, altus said:

I didn't say they didn't. The key word in that sentence was 'relying'.

 

They don't need to do mass surveillance. If they put a bit more effort/resources into human intelligence and less into trying to collect and analyse vast amounts of signals intelligence they might even get better results.

Sorry, my bad - it's been a long and tiring day. 😉

 

I totally agree they don't need to do mass  surveillance - that smacks of '1984'. The problem is that the people who create/amend legislation live in little bubbles and don't see anything outside their little office.

 

I've heard 'politicians' on technological subjects often enough to realise they are, shall we say, rather ignorant.

[altus]

4 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Sorry, my bad - it's been a long and tiring day. 😉

 

I totally agree they don't need to do mass  surveillance - that smacks of '1984'. The problem is that the people who create/amend legislation live in little bubbles and don't see anything outside their little office.

 

I've heard 'politicians' on technological subjects often enough to realise they are, shall we say, rather ignorant.

They definitely fall prey to snake oil salesmen promising the latest magic bullet.