General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
Pretty much every work contract I've ever had has had clauses in which would make this sort of behaviour gross misconduct, and a fireable offence.
And that is before we even get to destruction of evidence, obstruction, and failure to keep appropriate records whilst in public office.
How these pricks aren't being led out by their ears is, well, it's an overt example of rules for thee and not for me, but it still boils my piss.
Agreed. My employer was fined $200MM last year for not doing enough to enforce a ban on using personal channels like WhatsApp for conducting business, purely because they're not auditable. What really needs to end is the complete lack of accountability in government for completely flagrant rulebreaking and corruption. No, we won't have an inquiry followed by a slap on the wrist two years after they've left office. We'll have an immediate enquiry followed by a by-election if rulebreaking was found to have deliberately occurred.
Exactly! I would be fired for sending one message over personal devices from my work at a private company. My friend is a social worker for a council and would be struck off for life for sending one. These are clearly told to us, reinforced regularly and lets be clear, it is so easy to follow!
It's a massive security risk. It's utterly fucking stupid for official business to be done using it.
Right? Americans (well some, who, to be fair, also aren't unbiased) went mental about Hilary using personal email for government business. In the UK so many don't see an issue with goverment by WhatsApp!
Not disagreeing, they shouldn't use WhatsApp at all, but email is way less secure. Emails are easier to "hack" and if I remember right they were stored on her personal server so she personally keeps the data, a bit like how Trump was found with government documents in his personal belongings. WhatsApp is encrypted end to end and presumably (I hope) are used on gov work phones.
For me it's more about the lack of controls on accessing and retaining data used in WhatsApp. It's not stored on a central government system.
I don't know if the gov have an official messaging app. But hearing all this in the news really sounds like people in gov are intentionally using WhatsApp as a means to keep conversations secret. Like everything else with this government, it stinks.
Email security is purely on how it's done. If you want it end to end and encrypted at rest, there is the PGP email standard.
Government via WhatsApp is not acceptable. It's a closed source app from a foreign for profit data-mining company. It should be a no brainer that it's not acceptable.
there is the PGP email standard.
I don't think Hilary was using PGP to be fair.
Even if she was, it is a legitimate problem using non-gov email for gov business. Though the crazy thing is those calling to "lock her up" support politicians doing far worse.
Yeah totally agree. WhatsApp shouldn't be used by government.
Email can be secure both sides, one side or neither. You can't rely on it being secure.
If it's PGP email, it's as secure as the keys. If the keys can't be kept secure, no system can be kept secure. You email whose public key you have and it requires their private key to read.
Were talking about somebody using their own personal email for work purposes. There's absolutely no assurances on encryption their using. It's a bigger risk than WhatsApp, although I again should say I agree WhatsApp shouldn't be used either. Both options aren't good but for slightly different reasons, in my opinion anyway.
Oh I'm not arguing it's ok to use personal email for government business. I'm saying email can be secured.
It took me a bit to parse this title; at first I thought GCHQ was calling for the use of WhatsApp to end the government.
Unfortunately, with this government I've learnt their alternative would be to give another juicy contract to one of their lovers, school chums or donors.
Yeah that title could have been clearer
I'm from Grimsby, and he needs to stop wearing that hat, we're ashamed of him.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Speaking in evidence to a new parliamentary inquiry and as the UK heads into a general election year, Omand said the complexities and nuances of “any decent strategic analysis … cannot be conveyed in a WhatsApp exchange”.
Omand, who is also a professor of war studies and a senior adviser to a cyber-investment business, said in his evidence that ministers and officials often engaged in “gossip” and “informal exchanges” as they gathered for cabinet meetings, which helped let off steam when pressure had built up.
The use of WhatsApp by ministers has been under intense scrutiny since it emerged that Boris Johnson’s government used group chats to make decisions and discuss issues of critical national importance in the pandemic.
During the Covid era, Johnson’s government sidelined the usual Cabinet Office Briefing Room A (Cobra) process of emergency crisis management in favour of a new system of committees.
Omand said: “Without prejudice to [the Covid inquiry’s] future findings, I suggest that it was not sensible, whatever the frustrations, to scorn that system, well understood in Whitehall, local government and the devolved administrations, in place of ad hoc management of a major crisis from a few offices in No 10.
In separate evidence to the liaison subcommittee, another former permanent secretary, Jonathan Slater, called for government strategic thinking to be subject to more public scrutiny in real time.
The original article contains 1,006 words, the summary contains 226 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
In other news, water is wet; pictures at 11:00pm.