UK gov says new Home Sec will have powers to ban end-to-end encryption
peter at m-o-o-t.org
Sun Jul 17 08:08:41 PDT 2016
On 17/07/16 12:48, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Please, if you want to contribute to comprehending this new UK act, you
> will need to slow it waaay down, because you are writing conclusions,
> assumptions, with minimal quotes from the act, and making assertions
> based on these foundation things, and these foundation things are
> contradictory, and your conclusions are contradictory.
> Perhaps it's the British way, or perhaps the intention behind the
> passing of this Act is so nefarious, that the only way they could pass
> it was to be as obtuse, opaque and contradictory as it is, so that,
> ultimately, they (the parliament and those behind it - "the Lords
> spiritual and the Lords temporal") can wreak their mischief on the
> 'unsuspecting' people.
Being kind, you might say they put a good face on it. Being more
realistic, they try and mostly succeed in slipping it through with the
nastier parts unnoticed.
That's what they did with RIPA, the previous act.
Oh, and afaict there are no contradictions anywhere in what I have said.
> Peter, if your intention be genuinely "pro" the people and "pro" human
> rights or at least "pro" understanding/comprehending, my assessment is
> that so far, you are diving into the trap this Act sets and intends for
> you - i.e. that you be "unsuspecting" of evil intentions behind it,
> trusting in the government, trusting in those who drafted it, trusting
> in your "Lords temporal" -
If you think I trust any of them, you are sadly mistaken.
The Lords however are slightly better than the Home Office, who write
the bills and tell their patsies in the Lords and Commons what to say
the bills mean - which is frequently quite different to what they
However I am expert - repeat expert - in reading the actual damn Bills,
and working out what they actually say.
Better than the members of the Lords or Commons, better than the
politicians who tell the Home Office cunts what to put in the Bills,
better than the DPPs who apply them - most of whom don't read the actual
Bills, just summaries, because the Bills are so complicated - and I am
approaching as good as the people who write the damn things.
If I don't go through all the details here it's just because the bills
are so obscure and complex it would take megabytes and days of arguments.
Then you would have to know the general legal framework behind the
wording of a Bill, and the general legal framework of the UK, before
knowing what it meant. And even then you might occasionally be surprised
by a decision, some Judges just make stuff up as they go along, and not
everything which should be appealed is.
But you are welcome to read it yourself, it is available at:
-- Peter F
More information about the cypherpunks