Hahahahaha.

"Computer science went from a future-proof career to an industry in upheaval in a shockingly small amount of time."

This is basically 2001 prior to 9/11 again. Even the Slashdot comments could be substituted. I must be getting old.

Sucks to be graduating right now.

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.

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.

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

In a wholly unrelated note, HSBC is rumored to have heavily shorted commercial office space in the hours preceding this announcement.

Nope.

Computers will follow programmed Chinese walls. Traders will behave unethically / illegally whenever it suits them.

Congress already gave him the authority: 50 U.S. Code  1701 and 50 U.S. Code  1702

From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives.

CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).

Such statements will be used against Pai when the FCC gets sued over this.

It says exactly what I said it does. Quoting verbatim from that decision: "Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted."

I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.

If something's a constitutional or other legal right then you don't have to get a PERMIT to be authorized to do it.

Unless Grayned v. Rockford has been overturned while I wasn't looking, that is just not true. The government has a well-established right to regulate the time, place, and manner in which you exercise that speech.

Nightmare scenario for traders, benefit for everyone else. The AI likely would have Chinese walls built into them to prevent collusion and insider trading. I for one look forward to my innately honest (and auditable/examinable) AI masters

I fully expected the cops to not know or care what Tor was

I'd imagine that cops looking for child pornographers would have a pretty good understanding of what TOR is (even if they didn't think to check that it was an exit node)