Everyone knows that regulation are burdensome and a net drain on the economy. If people cannot trust their banks, it just means they will live with the consequences of their decisions. Weak men who cannot calculate risk should not have money anyways. I for one look forward to a return of wildcat banks, massive fraud, and increased market panics.

Biometrics are non-revokable usernames and should never be used to assert identity. They're easy to forge, have been proven forgeable by many studies and worst yet you can't change them if something goes wrong.

Again and again this comes up as a solution. It is the "convenience" side of the security triangle of cost, convenience, and security. While it makes things easy, it makes things a lot more insecure.

The Tory government policies are very unfortunate, pigheadedly ignoring basic math and reasoning. Backdoors do not work.

Several issues come to mind. Where is the City in this? I can't imagine all the financial infrastructure in the UK will be happy about weaker controls over security. What would Lloyds or Coutts say regarding government mandated backdoors?

UK has set a stronger policy of government support of the private sector with cybersecurity as well. They would be giving that up. NCSC and other governmental organizations and regulators have been remarkably effective at promoting a new path forward for the British economy. This places all their good work in jeopardy.

I must expect Labour will make hay of this as well. The Tories will be destroying good jobs. Britain cannot afford many more tech positions or firms leaving for the US or Canada.

I logged in after more than a decade to say this:

MLK didn't write the Constitution.

I hope that any engineer at Dynascale quits in protest, and the upstream providers refuse to provide service to these fools.

Hosting services are "uncancelable" until you piss off your domain, peering, and other providers. Then you're cut off.

Twitter had full XMPP Support for years, and we turned it off.

Citing “consistent feedback” from partners [Please don’t take away our surveillance capitalism money], Google is “expanding the testing [revenue] windows for the Privacy Sandbox APIs before we disable third-party cookies in Chrome, [and cut our ad money]” with that phase out now set to begin in the second hand of 2024. (edited)

A reminder that every a company says "Your trust and safety is a top priority," or "We take security very seriously"

Your data has already been stolen.

Wait, no.

There's a reason why we invented things like caps and voltage regulators. These electrical problems are long solved, and while I agree that the power may be somewhat dirty, it's quite clean by the time it reaches the main cpu...

The 90 day renewal cycle is "overly aggressive" to make sure your renewal scripts actually work!

How many times do we have to tell people that biometrics are irrevocable usernames and should never be used for authenticating payments?

I feel like every time this comes up it's chosen because it's gimmicky, sci-fi, and people are convinced it's more secure. It's not.

EFF chimes in here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/new-filter-mandate-bill-unmitigated-disaster

An "unmitigated disaster."

There are no "standard technical measures" that do not involve a massive degree of surveillance into a host, hosted by a hosting company or full and complete control. The danger present in this proposal is massive.

Perhaps this sort of model works when the hosting company is vimeo, youtube, or google drive which controls the content and application but once this is attempted to be applied to say, an ISP where individuals manage said hosts, all bets are off.

So much of the web is (fortunately) encrypted these days that they'd have to surveil the hosts themselves, and that is going to make for a very aggressive environment.

You can just take those hotgrits and gnu it, you insensitive clod.