It was a genuine question. I have no argument here. I don’t know the best term in this situation.

Would you say ‘women doctor’ in this scenario?

Thanks for pointing that out, it is Discovery’s decision. For their part though, Sony is still at fault as they didn’t demand perpetual use rights for content sold on their store, or at least a full refund for the customer.

I see it as the slug aliens have turned up with their best weaponry, which isn’t effective.

This one’s my favourite :)

Someone explain?

Should’ve painted it like Dr Who’s TARDIS.

This is not gonna be the vote winner they think it is. And fuck them for trying.

Sorry wired just came to hand. You can find it referenced elsewhere.

But it did change from ‘have to’ to ‘have to, if possible’ which is a massive climb down. It’s basically not possible to have a backdoor in e2e encryption so I think it’s dead in the water. It may even make other companies shift to e2e to avoid this legislation, which would be ironic.

And I think the quote is from the minister in charge of the bill, so he/she would talk it up.

The bill is awful. But at least it’s weak(er) and awful.

Time will tell.

I think the bill words it as ‘if feasible’ or something similar. But that’s enough wiggle room to drive a bus full of lawyers through.

Sure. I’ve not read it either but here’s what I’ve found.

Removal of encryption backdoors - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/britain-admits-defeat-in-online-safety-bill-encryption

Removal of ‘harmful but legal’ - https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/29/uk-online-safety-bill-legal-but-harmful-edit/

Age verification isn’t so clear cut but there’s room for a lot of hope. What ‘age verification’ is going to be in the bill is yet to be determined by Ofcom.

… Which is law makers kicking the can down the road… or passing the buck. Probably because it’s unenforceable and a technical/ privacy nightmare. Maybe it will amount to something, in which case we should be afraid, but I think most likely it will amount to not much.

Full bill is here if you have a spare 3 days to read it all - https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/52368/documents/3841

After bouncing back and forth between the house of lord’s and the house of commons This bill is a shadow of it’s former self. I’m glad to say.

Three things that were massively damaging for privacy and security have, as far as I can see, been scrapped.

1. The bill no longer requires tech companies to control ‘harmful but legal’ content. A blurry, ill defined concept that would have been impossible to regulate.
2. The bill no longer requires all end to end encrypted communication channel’s (WhatsApp etc) to have a backdoor for governments and enforcement agencies to access unencrypted messages between people. Something that would have broken effective security in every way.
3. The bill no longer requires porn to only be accessible to UK citizens after they have proven they are an adult. This was by providing bank details or ID to porn websites (lol no thanks), possibly through a third party company that is supposed to assure some privacy ( lol still no thanks).

And what’s left in the bill is going to be regulated by Ofcom, a toothless underfunded shell of a regulatory body.

This whole situation makes a lot more sense now. Thanks.

Am I the only one who thinks this is funny? It’s a joke people.

Link?

And if you upgrade to an annual 1600 dollar pro license that becomes a million dollars and a million installs before any per install pricing comes in.

Doesn’t seem wild to me.

They’re massive for a start. Police have something like 60% Union membership. Compare that IT and service industries which are in the area of 3-6%. That gives them serious clout for lobbying legislation and anything else.

Unions are effective. Sadly this one i just happens to be working for a rotten gang.

Black and white was a huge advancement in ai in games.

Her cell line has been instrumental in tens of thousands of medical patents. Why shouldn’t they be compensated?

Do you mind? I’m trying to be righteously infuriated over here.