[blub]

Well, I can't say that there's anything obviously wrong with the article.

You should be fearful, uncertain and full of doubt about privacy and democracy if you live in the UK. And those companies really are farming people's data and doing whatever the heck they want with it. And removing the people's access to private communication in the digital age is both stupid and evil.

There's no bluster and hyperbole, just the sad reality.

[24gttghh]

This doesn't seem to get suggested very often, or ever, but maybe we need to keep protesting these developments, and boycott these companies/services who collude with the government to erode our civil liberties. Nobody has to login to facebook, at least not yet...It's only going to get more difficult.

[CJefferson]

Obviously wrong with the article:

" You should not believe a single word any of those companies tells you about end-to-end encryption or privacy on their platforms ever again. "

Well, that's going to make it hard to have any discussion about privacy on the internet.

"If you’re still not convinced and feel that the UK government should have the right to spy on everyone, you can stop worrying. Because they already do."

Well in that case, what are we talking about?

The main reason there is nothing obviously wrong is because it doesn't really say anything, just keeps repeating "Amber says X, other online news source says not X. Amber is evil".

[bengillies]

From the article:

> Given the gravity of what’s at stake – which is nothing less than the integrity of personhood in the digital age and the future of democracy in Europe

So banning encryption in online chat programs (she obviously can't and won't be banning _all_ forms of encryption) is the same as destroying democracy and will effectively stop people from existing as people on the internet?

> Translation: We want to ban encryption and if we do we will be better equipped to catch terrorists.

in response to a direct quote saying "we don't want to ban encryption" is a bold and unsubstantiated opinion at best.

> Does it matter that you’re more at risk dying from falling out of bed than you are from terrorism

All analogies are bad, but this one is especially so. Nobody worries about dying falling out of bed. And if it really did happen, then it would be "merely" a tragic accident. Should the government only act to prevent types of murder if it happens more than people falling out of bed? A lot of people die of heart disease every year. Does that mean the government shouldn't do anything to try and prevent traffic accidents?

> Translation: We want to scapegoat the Internet as the root of the problem with terrorism.

This again is clearly not what's being said. They're aiming their guns at the internet, but nowhere is it implied that the root cause of terrorism is internet encryption.

> It is not the role of multinational corporations to police the world’s citizenry.

This is true, but those corporations cannot also place themselves above the law so they do have at least some duty, moral or otherwise to do something if the government wants them to (setting aside the specifics of the laws involved).

> Rudd pivots from the government’s successful battle against the spread of public propaganda by terrorist organisations to their belief that they need to eavesdrop on the private communications of every citizen in order to keep us safe.

I assume I missed something somewhere because afaict Rudd wants to be able to listen in on and extract evidence from private communications of suspects, much like they already do with telephone systems. I can't see anywhere she claims to want to actively listen to the entire population (though I fully get that it may end up that way on the basis that they've up to this point proven that they don't understand the technology well enough).

> You should take note of the companies that are part of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and never trust another word they say to you about the encryption and privacy features of their products.

Feel free to stop using everything that most tech companies produce but if if this is intended to be actual advice I don't think it's realistic.

> What it will do is make all of less safe and lead to chilling effects that will destroy what little democracy we have left. It will result in a surveillance state and a global panopticon the likes of which humanity has never seen.

Having just gone through a general election that resulted in a rare minority government and, potentially as a result, a fundamental change to brexit ambitions, I don't buy this at all. We have just as much democracy as we had before. It's a very very long way from where we are now to the UK government locking up leaders of the opposition for example.