"In the history of human communication, for hundreds of thousands of years, the default was private.... "What we are talking about here is the UK is poised to set a damning precedent if we break encryption, if this mass surveillance provision goes forward. "I want to protect the teens in Uganda where they just passed a law that makes being gay punishable by murder." "It's become a Frankenstein's monster" @mer__edith : Encryption either protects people or it doesn't. It is either safe or it is vulnerable. What's being proposed in this bill — if we can get back to the provision that we're concerned about — is a mechanism that would allow the evisceration of privacy, safety, and encryption. @DamianCollins : How do you do it? Do you just take the police's word for it or — Meredith: Do you wanna shadow me at work for a week? Damian: No, I just — Meredith — is that what you're asking? That's Damian: What I'm saying is, how do you do it? You say you take action, but how? Meredith: It depends on the situation. And we don't discuss confidential encounters with law enforcement. Damian: Do you investigate the account — the user's account? Meredith: Absolutely when, when warranted. But we're not going into those details…. What we are talking about here is the UK is poised to set a damning precedent if we break encryption, if this mass surveillance provision goes forward. We have authoritarian countries around the world that are looking to the UK to set the precedent — and let's be real about this. The International Human Rights Organization, Freedom House has classified about 40% of the world's population as living under repressive regimes point. So we're looking at Iran — Damian: No. Cause we're not going to require de-encryption. What we will require is companies — Meredith: But then you need to clarify the bill. Cathay: Can it be amended? Clarified? Meredith: It absolutely can be amended and clarified. There's amendment 205 that clarifies that this provision will not be used to break encryption. Cathay: What's wrong with taking up that minimum? Damian: Oh, because, uh, we don't need to set out things the bill's not gonna do. We set up the bill…. the things it is gonna do, and what it is gonna do is require companies to use available technologies… Now there are different sorts of messaging platforms. As I said before, if you've got a messaging platform that isn't encrypted available, technologies will help it detect things it can already see and find. If a messaging services is encrypted, we're not gonna require that encryption to be broken or redesigned. Meredith: I am committed to holding Big Tech accountable. And indeed, I joined Signal because I wanted to protect people from the kind of surveillance that big tech perpetrates every day. I want to protect the teens in Uganda where they just passed a law that makes being gay punishable by murder. I want to protect the young women in Iran who are protesting democracy. I want to protect the people on the front lines in Ukraine, who are, who are fighting Putin. And all of this requires on being able to communicate safely and securely outside of this nexus of surveillance. Cathy: This bill — some of your colleagues say is an illiberal mess. That your punishing the good guys like Meredith? Damian: Well, no, we're not, because we're not good. I don't have any chance to say this. We're not going to require companies to deencrypt or create back doors into Meredith: Specify that, and I'll go home and we'll be happy. Damian: The legislation doesn't say, doesn't say that now. So we're not taking anything out. We don't need to because the bill is really — Cathy: But the broader point, have you clarified that you have you, because of the abuse is of big tech as a whole ended up overreaching with this bill? Damian No, not at all. Cathy: And it's become a mess. It's become a Frankenstein's monster