FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

OnLine Safety Bill

Jump to newest
 

By *enSisko OP   Man
over a year ago

Cestus 3

As far as I read this bill is ready for Royal Assent.

As far as I know this bill affects end to end encryption as in the Government have asked internet companies to create a backdoor that only Government can access, to prevent, acts of terror, protect children and adults and give adults more control of content there children can access amounts other things.

IOS, Android will be affected and no longer a private, source of conversation.

Please feel free to do your own research, please feel free to comment, please be excellent to each other.

And if you don't want it is all good.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London

Terrible bill. In its current form, it may block end to end encryption from being implemented.

In the long term, it has set foundations for governments to control what is spoken. It won't be long before governments will expand the definition of "illegal content". Given that people already get arrested for making tweets, it will only get worse.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton

I am not fully conversant with the detail but from what I do know, I do not support some of what appears to be covered by this bill.

While it is a highly emotive topic to want to protect children and have intel to prevent crime and terrorism (ie who could possibly argue against that), citizens should have a right to privacy.

I would say all of us being on a swinger website should have some level of concern over any invasion of our privacy.

While not directly linked, I have concerns over what is happening to Russel Brand. This chap has been accused of some terrible things but as far as I am aware he has not been charged let alone gone to trial and been found guilty.

The way the Govt had written to various online platforms and demanded his content (and revenue streams) been taken down smacks of censorship. Brand has been critical of Govt snd the Covid vaccines etc. He is an annoying knob but he seems to be getting targeted and cancelled due to his outspoken opinions.

Now I have to admit this leaves me in an interesting quandary. When similar things happened to Andrew Tait I was like “fuck him” as I found him offensive. But here I am with a different view on Brand because he doesn’t offend me (he is a bit irritating but that’s all).

To me, innocent until proven guilty should mean the govt should not and cannot interfere with someone’s livelihood. So much as I cannot stand Tate and think he is an asshole, I have to in all consciousness re-evaluate how he was treated as it would appear to set a dangerous precedent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do believe Whatsapp and a few others have said they won't do it and pull there services from britain.so my question is what happens if I access it from a different country are they still aloud to check it I for one feel it's a step to far and they are using children terrorists as a excuse to spy and control.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 22/09/23 19:04:15]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 22/09/23 19:16:39]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enSisko OP   Man
over a year ago

Cestus 3


"I am not fully conversant with the detail but from what I do know, I do not support some of what appears to be covered by this bill.

While it is a highly emotive topic to want to protect children and have intel to prevent crime and terrorism (ie who could possibly argue against that), citizens should have a right to privacy.

I would say all of us being on a swinger website should have some level of concern over any invasion of our privacy.

While not directly linked, I have concerns over what is happening to Russel Brand. This chap has been accused of some terrible things but as far as I am aware he has not been charged let alone gone to trial and been found guilty.

The way the Govt had written to various online platforms and demanded his content (and revenue streams) been taken down smacks of censorship. Brand has been critical of Govt snd the Covid vaccines etc. He is an annoying knob but he seems to be getting targeted and cancelled due to his outspoken opinions.

Now I have to admit this leaves me in an interesting quandary. When similar things happened to Andrew Tait I was like “fuck him” as I found him offensive. But here I am with a different view on Brand because he doesn’t offend me (he is a bit irritating but that’s all).

To me, innocent until proven guilty should mean the govt should not and cannot interfere with someone’s livelihood. So much as I cannot stand Tate and think he is an asshole, I have to in all consciousness re-evaluate how he was treated as it would appear to set a dangerous precedent."

It was RB who put me onto this bill, so I looked it up and have followed it.

An interview I saw on C4 news stated that if the Government want a back door to private messages then that would open our conversations to other professional hackers who could exploit this back door and people of influence could be put at risk and also the everyday public who wish to be private.

Whatsapp, and other messaging apps such as telegram and signal have as said by another poster threatened to pull services from our internet as they say it is impossible to do this kind of request.

I have no idea what FB think or is it meta now as this is the only social media I use, I am not up to speed.

Could you all do without the apps you use at the moment, would you be happy to be without them?

Personally I use iOS text but when it is cross platform I use telegram or signal these could be taken from me.

what a sh1t show .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

This story is one that will ignite the conspiracy theorists and confuse the general public.

No data is obtained without absolute reason, or permission from judges.

The apps are making it harder for information to be taken through ever increasing levels of encryption, and like every countries security services, they are trying to stop crime / terror or national security challenges and need the help of the tech giants, not another hurdle to jump in trying to hack the service.

But remember, this is not a free for all, personal data access needs the highest levels of authorisation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enSisko OP   Man
over a year ago

Cestus 3

If their is a backdoor then there is no encryption or privacy, to access the information the permission of parliament or a judge is not needed as the excuse is national security, child exploitation, human trafficking etc.

Hard to argue against.

And frankly if the bill goes through the internet in this country will break as their will be no silicone valley involvement, so no one will be giving data as there is no one to harvest it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enSisko OP   Man
over a year ago

Cestus 3

RB has released another video, its' all over the news as another poster says.

It on news at 10 in a few.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

Security service access is an agreed process, protocols exist.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enSisko OP   Man
over a year ago

Cestus 3

The issue is that the security services cannot have any access as there is no internet company who would allow them access.

Hence the bill, and the threat to remove their services.

If an internet provider allowed access it would lose the trust of its users, less users less advert revenue.

But this is fab everyone is entitled to their view.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

apps and devices, no they don't, but can.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enSisko OP   Man
over a year ago

Cestus 3


"apps and devices, no they don't, but can."

They don't, but can, hmm

As I said before you are entitled to your view.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

More laws written by idiots that struggle to use computers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top