"Developers of apps that use end-to-end encryption to protect private communications could be considered hostile actors in the UK." <-- What about HTTPS, the thing that secures most websites especially banking sites. Old farts making laws about things they know nothing about! FFS
Developers of apps that use end-to-end encryption to protect private communications could be considered hostile actors in the UK. <-- HTTPS does this. What about secure sites like baking sites that encrypt end-to-end? Old farts making laws about things they know nothing about.
>>> Old farts making laws about things they know nothing about.
We should probably stop saying and believing that. This is basically the UK government making a deal to the developers they cannot refuse: cooperate (install backdoors) or get prosecuted. The French tried to do something similar not so long ago.
A decade ago politicians genuinely didn’t know much about the internet so most of the laws were terribly ill informed good ideas. The new sweep of internet legislation like chat control, age verification and banning of vpns are much more dangerous because those pushing know exactly what they are doing.
Exactly this. I do not think this is a case of Hanlon's razor. Assuming incompetence or stupidity of the government officials trying to push for is very dangerous.
Why worry about E2E encryption, in theory just need a cert issued from a vast array of CAs or intermediates. Which I wouldn't be suprised they possess the ability through some type of secret warrant, heck even private keys.
Browsers now require it to consider a certificate valid. Firefox, Chrome, and Safari all require a certificate to include proof of being logged in CT logs.
I've head the kinds TV show Bluey is especially good for dogs as it's mostly in their visible colour spectrum - I must say, our dog does seem to watch it when we have children over and it's on.
It might be immoral, but if you're trying to make money using their service I can't see there being a legal reason to prevent them doing this. I meant, they (Google) need the money right? Companies like this seem to get to the point where they feel justified in charging for every little thing that wouldn't kill them to give for free.
They do so much stupid stuff in the crossword (REBUS, missing letters, un-ordered phrases) that they can make a mess of anything. I HOPE they'll keep it as it is but just charge for past Wordles. That's the only improvement they could make.
They do so much stupid stuff in the crossword (REBUS, missing letters, un-ordered phrases)
Those are the meta game puzzles which generally happen on Wed or Thu. They can be frustrating, but the “aha!” moment, when you discover what’s going on, is the point. Those puzzles are the ones that set NYT crosswords as the gold standard and show off the creativity of the puzzle makers. Of course YMMV.
