Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Savonarola]

Think of the job security. You'll have 30-40 years of work.

I know someone working on HS2 who has described it as a job for life (with a decent benefits package)

Heh, don't read to the following HVC (or Josephus), but I don't need to leave my current project for that.

 

While my preference is mining, as the projects move quicker, there is always a period at the end where you have to find another project.

[HVC]

It's ok, no one in Toronto likes the TTC so it's not like you can make it worse

[Josquius]

Think of the job security. You'll have 30-40 years of work.

I know someone working on HS2 who has described it as a job for life (with a decent benefits package)

Which really it should be even all being well.
We should be building enough railways that we  have teams permanently on the payroll to roll through them.
But we can't even get this one done

[Syt]

Doing the rounds today - local opposition to building on the site of an "iconic scrapyard" from Trainspotting. This is the site

Remind me, which iconic scene took place there? It's been a while since I watched.

[Syt]

So I've learned that seemingly Tesco is putting steaks into those lockboxes that need to be opened at the checkout now?

[garbon]

So I've learned that seemingly Tesco is putting steaks into those lockboxes that need to be opened at the checkout now?

Google appears to suggest just one Tesco location.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah, these reports tend to rely on what is happening at the worst 1% of places.

[Josquius]

This has long been pretty normal in supermarkets with rough areas nearby.
I wouldn't say worst 1% though, fair bit above that.

[The Brain]

A Swedish B-list TV personality was recently caught stealing steaks from a supermarket.

[Syt]

Yeah, these reports tend to rely on what is happening at the worst 1% of places.

Fair enough, I'll file it under the same heading as "pre-peeled, vacuum sealed bananas" that one Austrian supermarket did that one time.

[Sheilbh]

Good to see a bit of focus on the absolute mess that is the Online Safety Bill. In this case I believe the tech companies saying they'd pull out of Britain if this passes - and they should.

I also agree with Martin's assessment that a very big problem with it is that it's become a bit of a Christmas tree bill - every time there's some negative news in relation to tech/digital, something gets added to the Online Safety Bill. Child sexual abuse and grooming - break end-to-end encryption; social media promoting eating disorders or suicide - force platforms to regulate "legal but harmful" content etc etc. It's not to deny the problems, but it's incredibly unwieldy and, I think, dangerously authoritarian handing over enormous power over communications to unaccountable tech companiies and regulators.

I was in the office last week and you saw exactly the problem. Every tech journalist and lawyer I know thinks the bill is a disaster that needs entirely dumping and starting again. But you look at the news and you basically have Facebook on one side and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children on the other pointing out that grooming cases are at a record high. Again there are definitely problems that need to be fixed with the digital environment (though I think enforcement is key and we don't do enough with current laws) but I'm really not sure this is the solution - and that is indicative of the problem, that campaigning groups, charities, pressure groups etc have fairly consistently been able to add language on their "cause" to the bill without, it feels, like anyone looking at how this is all supposed to work.

But it started with a white paper in the dying days of Theresa May's government - it's progressed under 5 Secretaries of State, Labour and the Lib Dems generally complain about it not being strong enough or not covering x issue. The Lords are doing the best they can but the whole thing is a mess and likely to pass

Sunak must hit pause on Online Safety Bill
new
Legislation threatens to weaken national security — it's the product of too many ministers and not enough thought
Iain Martin
Wednesday August 16 2023, 9.00pm, The Times

When ministers and MPs want to communicate with each other they reach for their smartphones and, like so many of us, alight on the little green logo to tap out a message. Westminster runs on WhatsApp.

They use secure messaging services because of end-to-end encryption, the process that scrambles messages, making them unreadable while they are in transit. Our legislators use these services because they trust them to be unhackable. The irony is that the Online Safety Bill that MPs look likely to vote through when parliament returns next month may lead to Britons being shut out of WhatsApp and other such services as early as next year.

WhatsApp and Signal, a not-for-profit secure messaging service, have warned they will be unable to operate in the UK if the bill passes in its current form. Signal has fewer users than WhatsApp but provides several extra layers of security to add protection. The firms said the bill created a potential "back door" for officialdom and, perhaps, hackers.

It gives the regulator Ofcom power to force "client-side scanning" on British devices. Tech firms will be ordered to scan suspicious messages before they are sent and encrypted. If that data is then passed to the authorities and stored, and perhaps falls into the wrong hands, its encryption has been fatally compromised.

It is unclear whether such client-side scanning technology will work — for now. But even the prospect makes Britain too much of a risk. The government says the tech "bros" are being alarmist and should be able to work something out. But if ministers are being too casual, and turn out to be wrong, it will be an expensive miscalculation.

The main criticism of the legislation to date has been on freedom of expression grounds. Critics have said it will have a chilling effect, encouraging tech giants to ban users who might get the platforms into trouble with the regulators. Now the companies are warning that the bill has a national security implication too.

Ukraine often uses messaging services to communicate securely with its allies, including the UK. The British armed forces and their allies also use services such as Signal alongside military communications systems. Do ministers really want to weaken western security? Have they thought this through?

If Signal and WhatsApp cannot be used on British-registered phones, anyone who needs access will presumably have to ship in a second, secure device from the US.

What struck me in conversations around Whitehall is the exceptionally haphazard and shambolic way in which Britain has attempted to make this law. What started as a sensible attempt to tackle child abuse online and catch perpetrators has become an "omnibus bill" with all manner of provisions chucked in.

Even by the farcical standards of Westminster in recent years, it has a troubled history. Its roots lie in the Online Harms white paper of April 2019, when Theresa May was in No 10. The government announced that it would introduce a regime of internet regulation to force the tech giants to tackle child abuse online and, ironically in light of how it has turned out, threats to national security.

Jeremy Wright was the digital, culture, media and sport secretary at the time. Since his tenure, and as the white paper became a bill, four secretaries of state followed. Of Nicky Morgan, Oliver Dowden, Nadine Dorries and Michelle Donelan, only Dowden served more than a year in the post.

In February this year, the responsibility for digital policy was removed from the culture department and transferred to the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Donelan was moved there. For three months of her tenure, until July, Chloe Smith provided cover while Donelan was on maternity leave.

This constant changing of key personnel over four years is no way to make effective national policy in any area, never mind one as vital as this. "No one is in charge of digital policy," said an MP, "when everyone is."

The legislation sits at the intersection of several highly complex dilemmas involving difficult trade-offs. We want child abuse and crime dealt with, but if the approach to communication is too draconian then freedom is lost and security weakened.

The bill has implications for family life, child protection, crime, intelligence collection, investment, technology, liberty, democratic control, media freedom, security and the attitude of allies such as the US, who are not going in this direction. It is more complicated than Brexit.

For Westminster, this is a question of the fundamental powers of parliament. A minister said: "Take back control? The control has been taken by the tech companies. Do you want your laws made by tech libertarians on the US West Coast or by our elected parliament?"

When parliament returns from recess, the government will have to make a decision. Whitehall rumours suggest the prime minister realises he needs to retreat a little, because he is keen to attract tech investment rather than drive it away. No 10 needs a bill to pass to have something to show for four years of the Tories trying. Groups campaigning for a crackdown on internet crime will accuse Sunak of being soft if he retreats.

Last month, when peers held their latest debate on the subject, there was much sense talked. How would Ofcom use these new powers? Does Ofcom even want them? Who would oversee the regulator? Labour's Lord Stevenson of Balmacara suggested the balance had still not been found on encryption. It could be time for a pause, he said, to get it right. The government should take his advice.

Incidentally Lord Stevenson of Balmacara was a bit of a crony appointment by Gordon Brown but is really excellent on anything digital - really thoughtful contributions and amendments on Data Protection Act for example.

[mongers]

More on the Crooked House pub cause celeb, it had only been bought a few days before the fire, on the night of which a band had been due to play, their name 'Gasoline and Matches'.



Also heard one report that a digger used in the demolition, had been hired a few days before the fire happened.    Though I find that hard to believe.

edit:
Apparently the digger was hired a week or so before hand according to several newspapers.
 

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think everything I've read about it makes it sound like a more and more obvious scam - not sure what the right word is. It's not scam but I can't think of a better one.

Long read by Hans Kundnani extracted from his forthcoming book "Eurowhiteness" on European identity in the European project. I posted something by him in the EU thread a while ago about the "civilisational" turn in the EU - which he's turned into a book:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/17/the-eurocentric-fallacy-the-myths-that-underpin-european-identity

I think the piece is worth reading and book sounds interesting in general.

But it also makes me think again that if they continue, the combination of trends in British politics and the trends going on in the EU (both of which may change), we may well end up back in the 60s-70s position where Euroscepticism ends up mainly being a feature of the British left while pro-EU views are generally found on the right. And in both cases broadly for the same reasons, say, Barbara Castle opposed joining the EEC and Ted Heath endorsed it.

[Gups]

Yeah I think everything I've read about it makes it sound like a more and more obvious scam - not sure what the right word is. It's not scam but I can't think of a better one.

Arson

[PJL]

Yeah, that was an insurance fire for sure.