Replying to Avatar Susie Violet

Two years ago, I warned in City

AM that the UK's Online Safety Bill risked undermining privacy and paving the way for government overreach into our digital lives.

Today, that concern feels more urgent than ever.

Last month, the EU Commission released its ProtectEU roadmap, outlining plans to provide law enforcement with access to encrypted data by 2030.

This is not about targeting specific suspects. It is about building the legal and technical infrastructure for mass surveillance.

Big Brother Watch have revealed that live facial recognition systems deployed in UK cities are wrong nearly 9 out of 10 times, scanning innocent people without their knowledge or consent. This is already happening in our streets, at stations, even at protests.

Now imagine that biometric surveillance linked to a centralised digital currency.

Imagine every payment, location, contact and movement tracked, stored and correlated.

This is not theoretical.

We risk building a society where privacy is gone, autonomy is restricted, and control is centralised in the name of convenience and safety.

The combination of decrypted messaging, facial recognition, CBDCs, and mandatory ID checks and full KYC creates a full spectrum surveillance regime. A system where dissent is not crushed by force, but quietly discouraged through constant surveillance.

What’s at stake is freedom of thought, movement and expression. We should be defending them, not trading them for the illusion of safety.

Once this infrastructure is in place, it is rarely rolled back.

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-presents-roadmap-effective-and-lawful-access-data-law-enforcement-2025-06-24_en

This why I’m spending so much time getting nostr:npub1whtn0s68y3cs98zysa4nxrfzss5g5snhndv35tk5m2sudsr7ltms48r3ec and MLS messaging on nostr right.

It can’t just be an app. It had to be an unassailable and unstoppable protocol.

They will come. And when they do, there can’t be anything they can do.

nostr:nevent1qqsww3ce88sc8fe8akprgl3v5dewewtsusndkpcqs2y6dk9lztk588gprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvrqdv8v

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Is White Noise going to represent a protocol then? Like in the Blossom sense?

Means NIP-EE is intended to be seen as not just a NIP but a protocol (that'll be split out and have it's own separate NIP-like docs)? Keychat is not on NIP-EE, so that would make Keychat on another protocol? Or what's the wider lay of the land here?

So NIP-EE is all about how to apply the MLS protocol to Nostr. MLS is a true protocol but is agnostic in how implementations do message delivery and identity (the specifically call out that this is the domain of the implementations).

NIP-EE fills in the blanks for how to use Nostr for those two services. It's probably won't have it's own NIPs per se, but maybe it should given the overall complexity of MLS messaging and the additional protocol features we'll want to add over time.

Keychat is off spec and won't be interoperable until they change. But many other apps will be implementing NIP-EE messaging so we'll have interoperable uses of MLS all over nostr soon.

Just make sure it works all the time.

Thank you for your service 🙏

Tell me please. Am I some kind of retarded or is the backdoor claim just technically not enforcable on opensource? I mean whatever stock-traded company maby can be pressured to implement something on their server. But when someone forks Signal for example and adds a backdoor, it is just a bit unlikely, that many people will start to use it.

And all these laws can also not enforce to unlearn all cryptographic algorythms that are prooven to work. So eighter I am very naive or cryptography will work no matter if some law would request a backdoor or not.

Governments be like: "How do we ban math?" 🔢🚓🤡