Government Archives

The absurdity card

Fifteen years ago, a new incoming government swept away a policy its immediate predecessors had been pushing since shortly after the 2001 9/11 attacks: identity cards. That incoming government was led by David Cameron’s conservatives, in tandem with Nick Clegg’s liberal democrats. The outgoing government was Tony Blair’s. When Keir Starmer’s reinvented Labour party swept the 2024 polls, probably few of us expected he would adopt Blair’s old policies so soon.

But here we are: today’s papers announce Starmer’s plan for mandatory “digital ID”.

Fifteen years is an unusually long time between ID card proposals in Britain. Since they were scrapped at the end of World War II, there has usually been a new proposal about every five years. In 2002, at a Scrambling for Safety event held by the Foundation for Information Policy Research and Privacy International, former minister Peter Lilley observed that during his time in Margaret Thatcher’s government ID card proposals were brought to cabinet every time there was a new minister for IT. Such proposals were always accompanied with a request for suggestions how it could be used. A solution looking for a problem.

In a 2005 paper I wrote for the University of Edinburgh’s SCRIPT-ED journal, I found evidence to support that view: ID card proposals are always framed around current obsessions. In 1993, it was going to combat fraud, illegal immigration, and terrorism. In 1995 it was supposed to cut crime (at that time, Blair argued expanding policing would be a better investment). In 1989, it was ensuring safety at football grounds following the Hillsborough disaster. The 2001-2010 cycle began with combating terrorism, benefit fraud, and convenience. Today, it’s illegal immigration and illegal working.

A report produced by the LSE in 2005 laid out the concerns. It has dated little, despite preceding smartphones, apps, covid passes, and live facial recognition. Although the cost of data storage has continued to plummet, it’s also worth paying attention to the chapter on costs, which the report estimated at roughly £11 billion.

As I said at the time, the “ID card”, along with the 51 pieces of personal information it was intended to store, was a decoy. The real goal was the databases. It was obvious even then that soon real time online biometric checking would be a reality. Why bother making a card mandatory when police could simply demand and match a biometric?

We’re going to hear a lot of “Well, it works in Estonia”. *A* digital ID works in Estonia – for a population of 1.3 million who regained independence in 1991. Britain has a population of 68.3 million, a complex, interdependent mass of legacy systems, and a terrible record of failed IT projects.

We’re also going to hear a lot of “people have moved on from the debates of the past”, code for “people like ID cards now” – see for example former Conservative leader William Hague. Governments have always claimed that ID cards poll well but always come up against the fact that people support the *goals*, but never like the thing when they see the detail. So it will probably prove now. Twelve years ago, I think they might have gotten away with that claim – smartphones had exploded, social media was at its height, and younger people thought everything should be digital (including voting). But the last dozen years began with Snowden‘s revelations, and continued with the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, ransomware, expanding acres of data breaches, policing scandals, the Horizon / Post Office disaster, and wider understanding of accelerating passive surveillance by both governments and massive companies. I don’t think acceptance of digital ID is a slam-dunk. I think the people who have failed to move on are the people who were promoting ID cards in 2002, when they had cross-party support, and are doing it again now.

So, to this new-old proposal. According to The Times, there will be a central database of everyone who has the right to work. Workers must show their digital ID when they start a new job to prove their employment is legal. They already have to show one of a variety of physical ID documents, but “there are concerns some of these can be faked”. I can think of a lot cheaper and less invasive solution for that. The BBC last night said checks for the right to live here would also be applied to anyone renting a home. In the Guardian, Starmer is quoted calling the card “an enormous opportunity” and saying the card will offer citizens “countless benefits” in streamlining access to key services, echoes of 2002’s “entitlement card”. I think it was on the BBC’s Newsnight that I heard someone note the absurdity of making it easier to prove your entitlement to services that no longer exist because of cuts.

So keep your eye on the database. Keep your eye on which department leads. Immigration suggests the Home Office, whose desires have little in common with the need of ordinary citizens’ daily lives. Beware knock-on effects. Think “poll tax”. And persistently ask: what problem do we have for which a digital ID is the right, the proportionate, the *necessary* solution?

There will be detailed proposals, consultations, and draft legislation, so more to come. As an activist friend says, “Nothing ever stays won.”

Illustrations: British National Identity document circa 1949 (via Wikimedia.)

Wendy M. Grossman is an award-winning journalist. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Email to Ofgem

So, the US has claimed victory against the UK.

Regular readers may recall that in February the UK’s Home Office secretly asked Apple to put a backdoor in the Advanced Data Protection encryption it offers as a feature for iCloud users. In March, Apple challenged the order. The US objected to the requirement that the backdoor should apply to all users worldwide. How dare the Home Office demand the ability to spy on Americans?

On Tuesday, US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced the UK is dropping its demand for the backdoor in Apple’s encryption “that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens”. The key here is “American citizens”. The announcement – which the Home Office is refusing to comment on – ignores everyone else and also the requirement for secrecy. It’s safe to say that few other countries would succeed in pressuring the UK in this way.

As Bll Goodwin reports at Computer Weekly, the US deal does nothing to change the situation for people in Britain or elsewhere. The Investigatory Powers Act (2016) is unchanged. As Parmy Olson writes at Bloomberg, the Home Office can go on issuing Technical Capability Notices to Apple and other companies demanding information on their users that the criminalization of disclosure will keep the companies silent. The Home Office can still order technology companies operating in the UK to weaken their security. And we will not know they’ve done it. Surprisingly, support for this point of view comes from the Federal Trade Commission, which has posted a letter to companies deploring foreign anti-encryption policy (ignoring how often undermining encryption has been US policy, too) and foreign censorship of Americans’ speech. This is far from over, even in the US.

Within the UK, the situation remains as dangerously uncertain as ever. With all countries interconnected, the UK’s policy risks the security of everyone everywhere. And, although US media may have forgotten, the US has long spied on its citizens by getting another country to do it.

Apple has remained silent, but so far has not withdrawn its legal challenge. Also continuing is the case filed by Privacy International, Liberty, and two individuals. In a recent update, PI says both legal cases will be heard over seven days in 2026 as much as possible in the open.

***

For non-UK folk: The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) is the regulator for Britain’s energy market. Its job is to protect consumers.

To Ofgem:

Today’s Guardian (and many others) carries the news that Tesla EMEA has filed an application to supply British homes and businesses with energy.

Please do not approve this application.

I am a journalist who has covered the Internet and computer industries for 35 years. As we all know, Tesla is owned by Elon Musk. Quite apart from his controversial politics and actions within the US government, Elon Musk has shown himself to be an unstable personality who runs his companies recklessly. Many who have Tesla cars love them – but the cars have higher rates of quality control problems than those from other manufacturers, and Musk’s insistence on marketing the “Full Self Drive” feature has cost lives according to the US National Highway and Transportation Safety Agency, which launched yet another investigation into the company just yesterday. In many cases, when individuals have sought data from Tesla to understand why their relatives died in car fires or crashes the company has refused to help them. During the covid emergency, thousands of Tesla workers got covid because Musk insisted on reopening the Tesla factory. This is not a company people should trust with their homes.

With Starlink, Musk has exercised his considerable global power by turning off communications in Ukraine while it was fighting back Russian attacks. SpaceX launches continue to crash. According to the children’s commissioner’s latest report, far more children encounter pornography online on Musk’s X than on pornography sites, a problem that has gotten far worse since Musk took it over.

More generally, he is an enemy of workers’ rights. Misinformation on X helped fuel the Southport riots, and Musk himself has considered trying to oust Keir Starmer as prime minister.

Many are understandably awed by his technological ideas. But he uses these to garner government subsidies and undermine public infrastructure, which he then is able to wield as a weapon to suit his latest whims.

Musk is already far too powerful in the world. His actions in the White House have shown he is either unable to understand or entirely uninterested in the concerns and challenges that face people living on sums that to him seem negligible. He is even less interested in – and often actively opposes – social justice, fairness, and equity. No amount of separation between him and Tesla EMEA will be sufficient to counter his control of and influence over his company. Tesla’s board, just weeks ago, voted to award him $30 billion in shares to “energise and focus” him.

Please do not grant him a foothold in Britain’s public infrastructure. Whatever his company is planning, it does not have British interests at heart.

Ofgem is accepting public comments on Tesla’s application until close of business on Friday, August 22, 2025.

Illustration: Artist Dominic Wilcox’s Stained Glass Driverless Sleeper Car..

Drought conditions

At 404 Media, Matthew Gault was first to spot a press release from the UK’s National Drought Group offering a list of things we can do to save water. The meeting makes sense: people think of the UK as a rainy country, but an increasing number of parts of the UK are experiencing extraordinarily dry weather. This “green and pleasant England” is brown.

Last on the Group’s list of things we can do to save water at home: “Delete old emails and pictures as data centres require vast amounts of water to cool their systems.”

I had to look up the National Drought Group. Says Water Magazine: “The National Drought Group includes the Met[eorology] Office, government, regulators, water companies, farmers, the [Canal and River Trust], angling groups and conservation experts. With further warm, dry weather expected, the NDG will continue to meet regularly to coordinate the national response and safeguard water supplies for people, agriculture, and the environment.”

For those outside the UK: its ten water companies are particular unpopular just now. Created by privatization during Margaret Thatcher’s decade as prime minister, six are being sued for £500 million for “underreporting sewage spills”. Others are being sued for overcharging 35 million household water customers. As just one example, Thames Water will raise prices by 35% over the next three years (on top of other recent rises), and expects customers to pay £7.5 billion for a new reservoir in Oxfordshire. It already has £17 billion in debt, and this week we learned environment secretary Steve Reed has made contingency plans in case the company goes bust. As George Monbiot writes at the Guardian, money that should have been invested in infrastructure went instead to shareholders. Climate change is a factor, sure, but so is poor water management.

All this being the case, the impact consumers can have by doing even the most effective things is dwarfed by the water companies’ failures. Deleting emails is not one of the most effective things.

At his The Weird Turn Pro Substack, Andy Masley provides some useful comparisons. Basic conclusion: you’d have to delete billions of emails to equal the savings of fixing your leaking toilet (if you have one). The whole thing reminds me of a while back when everyone was being told to save electricity by unplugging everything to extinguish all those standby lights. Last year, Which pointed out that the savings are really, really small.

The bizarre idea of deleting emails is coming, at least in part, from a government that is proposing a raft of technology-related legislation and wants, in the next five to ten years, to mastermind all sorts of IT projects, from making AI pervasive throughout government to bringing in a digital ID card. Are they thinking about the data centers they’ll need and the impact they’ll have on water management? Maybe instead tell people not to use generative AI or mine cryptocurrencies?

This much is true: data centers are a problem across the world because they require extreme amounts of water for cooling. In recent examples: at the New York Times, Eli Tan visits the US state of Georgia. At Rest of World, last year Ushar Daniele and Khadija Alam predicted upcoming water shortages in Malaysia, and Claudia Urquieta and Daniela Dib found protests in Chile, where 28 new data centers are planned.

Telling people to delete emails and pictures is just embarrassing – and sad, if people actually do it and sacrifice personal history they care about. As Masley writes, “Major governments should really know better than this.”

***

Two weeks ago we noted the arrival of age verification in the UK. Related, on May 8 the Wikimedia Foundation announced it had filed a legal challenge to the categorization provisions of the Online Safety Act (not the Act itself). The basic problem: there is little in the Act to distinguish between Wikipedia, a crowd-edited provider of highly curated information, and Facebook…or X.

The Foundation says nearly 260,000 volunteers worldwide in 300 languages contribute to Wikipedia. I do myself, but verified or not, I’m in no danger. Many are contributing factual information in countries where the facts offend an authoritarian government intent on shutting them up. The Foundation argues that 1) Wikipedia is “one of the world’s most trusted and widely used digital public goods; 2) it is at risk of being placed in the highest-risk category because of its size and interactive structure; 2) being so categorized would force it to verify the identity of contributors, placing many at risk; 4) could endanger the existence of tools the site uses to combat harmful content; 5) “criminal anonymous abuse”, which is what the Category 1 duty is supposed to help solve, isn’t a problem Wikipedia has. Instead, identifying volunteers is more likely to expose them to it.

So bad news: on August 11, the High Court of Justice dismissed the case.

The better news is that Justice Jeremy Johnson warned that if Ofcom does place Wikipedia in Category 1, it would have to be justifiable as proportionate. The judge also acknowledged the testimony of a user identified as “BLN”, who provided evidence of the extensive threats editors can face.

No one claims Wikipedia is perfect. But it remains an extraordinary collaborative achievement and a public good. It would be a horrifying consequence if legislation intended to protect children deprived them of it.

Illustrations: Kew Green, August 2025.

Nephology

For an hour yesterday (June 5, 2025), we were treated to the spectacle of the US House Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, listening – really listening, it seemed – to four experts defending strong encryption. The four: technical expert Susan Landau and lawyers Caroline Wilson-Palow, Richard Salgado, and Gregory Nejeim.

The occasion was a hearing on the operation of the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (2018), better known as the CLOUD Act. It was framed as collecting testimony on “foreign influence on Americans’ data”. More precisely, the inciting incident was a February 2025 Washington Post article revealing that the UK’s Home Office had issued Apple with a secret demand that it provide backdoor law enforcement access to user data stored using the Advanced Data Protection encryption feature it offers for iCloud. This type of demand, issued under S253 of the Investigatory Powers Act (2016), is known as a “technical capability notice”, and disclosing its existence is a crime.

The four were clear, unambiguous, and concise, incorporating the main points made repeatedly over the last the last 35 years. Backdoors, they all agreed, imperil everyone’s security; there is no such thing as a hole only “good guys” can use. Landau invoked Salt Typhoon and, without ever saying “I warned you at the time”, reminded lawmakers that the holes in the telecommunications infrastructure that they mandated in 1994 became a cybersecurity nightmare in 2024. All four agreed that with so much data being generated by all of us every day, encryption is a matter of both national security as well as privacy. Referencing the FBI’s frequent claim that its investigations are going dark because of encryption, Nojeim dissented: “This is the golden age of surveillance.”

The lawyers jointly warned that other countries such as Canada and Australia have similar provisions in national legislation that they could similarly invoke. They made sensible suggestions for updating the CLOUD Act to set higher standards for nations signing up to data sharing: set criteria for laws and practices that they must meet; set criteria for what orders can and cannot do; and specify additional elements countries must include. The Act could be amended to include protecting encryption, on which it is currently silent.

The lawmakers reserved particular outrage for the UK’s audacity in demanding that Apple provide that backdoor access for *all* users worldwide. In other words, *Americans*.

Within the UK, a lot has happened since that February article. Privacy advocates and other civil liberties campaigners spoke up in defense of encryption. Apple soon withdrew ADP in the UK. In early March, the UK government and security services removed advice to use Apple encryption from their websites – a responsible move, but indicative of the risks Apple was being told to impose on its users. A closed-to-the-public hearing was scheduled for March 14. Shortly before it, Privacy International, Liberty, and two individual claimants filed a complaint with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal seeking for the hearing to be held in public, and disputing the lawfulness, necessity, and secrecy of TCNs in general. Separately, Apple appealed against the TCN.

On April 7, the IPT released a public judgment summarizing the more detailed ruling it provided only to the UK government and Apple. Short version: it rejected the government’s claim that disclosing the basic details of the case will harm the public interest. Both this case and Apple’s appeal continue.

As far as the US is concerned, however, that’s all background noise. The UK’s claim to be able to compel the company to provide backdoor access worldwide seems to have taken Congress by surprise, but a day like this has been on its way ever since 2014, when the UK included extraterritorial power in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (2014). At the time, no one could imagine how they would enforce this novel claim, but it was clearly something other governments were going to want, too.

This Judiciary Committee hearing was therefore a festival of ironies. For one thing, the US’s own current administration is hatching plans to merge government departments’ carefully separated databases into one giant profiling machine for US citizens. Second, the US has always regarded foreigners as less deserving of human rights than its own citizens; the notion that another country similarly privileges itself went down hard.

More germane, subsidiaries of US companies remain subject to the PATRIOT Act, under which, as the late Caspar Bowden pointed out long ago, the US claims the right to compel them to hand over foreign users’ data. The CLOUD Act itself was passed in response to Microsoft’s refusal to violate Irish data protection law by fulfilling a New York district judge’s warrant for data relating to an Irish user. US intelligence access to European users’ data under the PATRIOT Act has been the big sticking point that activist lawyer Max Schrems has used to scuttle a succession of US-EU data sharing arrangements under GDPR. Another may follow soon: in January, the incoming Trump administration fired most of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight board tasked to protect Europeans’ rights under the latest such deal.

But, no mind. Feast, for a moment, on the thought of US lawmakers hearing, and possibly willing to believe, that encryption is a necessity that needs protection.

Illustrations: Gregory Nejeim, Richard Salgado, Caroline Wilson-Palow, and Susan Landau facing the Judiciary Committee on June 5, 2025.

Wendy M. Grossman is the 2013 winner of the Enigma Award. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Sovereign

On May 19, a group of technologists, researchers, economists, and scientists published an open letter calling on British prime minister Keir Starmer to prioritize the development of “sovereign advanced AI capabilities through British startups and industry”. I am one of the many signatories. Britain’s best shot at the kind of private AI research lab under discussion was Deepmind, sold to Google in 2014; the country has nothing now that’s domestically owned. ”

Those with long memories know that Leo was the first computer used for a business application – running Lyons tea rooms. In the 1980s, Britain led personal computing.

But the bigger point is less about AI in specific and more about information technology generally. At a panel at Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection in 2022, the former MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht, who was the special rapporteur for the General Data Protection Regulation, outlined his work building up cloud providers and local hardware as the Minister for Energy, Agriculture, the Environment, Nature and Digitalization of Schleswig-Holstein. As he explained, the public sector loses a great deal when it takes the seemingly easier path of buying proprietary software and services. Among the lost opportunities: building capacity and sovereignty. While his organization used services from all over the world, it set its own standards, one of which was that everything must be open source,

As the events of recent years are making clear, proprietary software fails if you can’t trust the country it’s made in, since you can’t wholly audit what it does. Even more important, once a company is bedded in, it can be very hard to excise it if you want to change supplier. That “customer lock-in” is, of course, a long-running business strategy, and it doesn’t only apply to IT. If we’re going to spend large sums of money on IT, there’s some logic to investing it in building up local capacity; one of the original goals in setting up the Government Digital Service was shifting to smaller, local suppliers instead of automatically turning to the largest and most expensive international ones.

The letter calls relying on US technology companies and services a “national security risk. Elsewhere, I have argued that we must find ways to build trusted systems out of untrusted components, but the problem here is more complex because of the sensitivity of government data. Both the US and China have the right to command access to data stored by their companies, and the US in particular does not grant foreigners even the few privacy rights it grants its citizens.

It’s also long past time for countries to stop thinking in terms of “winning the AI race”. AI is an umbrella term that has no single meaning. Instead, it would be better to think in terms of there being many applications of AI, and trying to build things that matter.

***

As predicted here two years ago, AI models are starting to collapse, Stephen J. Vaughan writes at The Register.

The basic idea is that as the web becomes polluted with synthetically-generated data, the quality of the data used to train the large language models degrades, so the models themselves become less useful. Even without that, the AI-with-everything approach many search engines are taking is poisoning their usefulness. Model collapse just makes it worse.

We would point out to everyone frantically adding “AI” to their services that the historical precedents are not on their side. In the late 1990s, every site felt it had to be a portal, so they all had search, and weather, and news headlines, and all sorts of crap that made it hard to find the search results. The result? Google disrupted all that with a clean, white page with no clutter (those were the days). Users all switched. Yahoo is the most obvious survivor from that period, and I think it’s because it does have some things – notably financial data – that it does extremely well.

It would be more satisfying to be smug about this, but the big issue is that companies are going on spraying toxic pollution over the services we all need to be able to use. How bad does it have to get before they stop?

***

At Privacy Law Scholars this week, in a discussion of modern corporate oligarchs and their fantasies of global domination, an attendee asked if any of us had read the terms of service for Starlink. She wanted to draw out attention to the following passage, under “Governing Law”:

For Services provided to, on, or in orbit around the planet Earth or the Moon, this Agreement and any disputes between us arising out of or related to this Agreement, including disputes regarding arbitrability (“Disputes”) will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas in the United States. For Services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities. Accordingly, Disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement.

Reminder: Starlink has contracts worth billions of dollars to provide Internet infrastructure in more than 100 countries.

So who’s signing this?

Illustrations: The Martian (Ray Walston) in the 1963-1966 TV series My Favorite Martian.

The risks of recklessness

In 1997, when the Internet was young and many fields were still an unbroken green, the United States Institute of Peace convened a conference on virtual diplomacy. In my writeup for the Telegraph, I saw that organizer Bob Schmitt had convened two communities – computer and diplomacy – who were both wondering how they could get the other to collaborate but had no common ground.

On balance, the computer folks, who saw a potential market as well as a chance to do some good, were probably more eager than the diplomats, who favored caution and understood that in their discipline speed was often a bad idea. They were also less attracted than one might think to the notion of virtual meetings despite the travel it would save. Sometimes, one told me, it’s the random conversations around the water cooler that make plain what’s really happening. Why is Brazil mad? In a virtual meeting, it may be harder to find out that it’s not the negotiations but the fact that their soccer team lost last night.

I thought at the time that the conference would be the first of many to tackle these issues. But as it’s turned out, I’ve never been at an event anything like it…until now, nearly 30 years later. This week, a group of diplomats and human rights advocates met, similarly, to consider how the cyber world is changing diplomacy and international relations.

The timing is unexpectedly fortuitous. This week’s revelation that someone added Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal chat in which US cabinet officials discussed plans for an imminent military operation in Yemen shows the kinds of problems you get when you rely too much on computer mediation. In the usual setting, a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), you can see exactly who’s there, and communications to anyone outside that room are entirely blocked. As a security clearance-carrying friend of mine said, if he’d made such a blunder he’d be in prison.

The Signal blunder was raised by almost every speaker. It highlights something diplomats think about a lot: who is or is not in the room. Today, as in 1997, behavioral cues are important; one diplomat estimated that meeting virtually costs you 50% to 60% of the communication you have when meeting face-to-face. There are benefits, too, of course, such as opening side channels to remote others who can advise on specific questions, or the ability to assemble a virtual team a small country could never afford to send in person.

These concerns have not changed since 1997. But it’s clear that today’s diplomats feel they have less choice about what new technology gets deployed and how than they did then, when the Internet’s most significant predecessor new technology was the global omnipresence of news network CNN, founded in 1980. Now, much of what control they had then is disappearing, both because human behavior overrides their careful, rulebound, friction-filled diplomatic channels and processes via shadow IT, but also because the biggest technology companies own so much of what we call “public” infrastructure.

Another key difference: many people don’t see the need for education to learn facts; it’s a particular problem for diplomats, who rely on historical data to show the world they aspire to build. And another: today a vastly wider array of actors, from private companies to individuals and groups of individuals, can create world events. And finally: in 1997 multinational companies were already challenging the hegemony of governments, but they were not yet richer and more powerful than countries.

Cue for a horror thought: what if Big Tech, which is increasingly interested in military markets, and whose products are increasingly embedded at the hearts of governments decide that peace is bad for business? Already they are allying with politicians to resist human rights principles, most notably privacy.

Which cues another 1997 memory: Nicholas Negroponte absurdly saying that the Internet would bring world peace by breaking down national borders. In 20 years, he said (that would be eight years ago) children would not know what nationalism is. Instead, on top of all today’s wars and internal conflicts, we’re getting virtual infrastructure attacks more powerful than bullets, and proactive agents fueled by large language models. And all fueled by the performative-outrage style of social media, which is becoming just how people speak, publicly and privately.

All this is more salient when you listen to diplomats and human rights activists as they are the ones who see up close the human lives lost. Meta’s name comes up most often, as in Myanmar and Ethiopia.

The mood was especially touchy because a couple of weeks ago a New Zealand diplomat was recalled after questioning US president Donald Trump’s understanding of history during a public panel in London – ironically in Chatham House under the Chatham House rule.

“You say the wrong thing on the wrong platform at the wrong time, and your career is gone,” one observed. Their people perimeter is gone, as it has been for so many of us for a decade or more. But more than most people, diplomats who don’t have trust have nothing. And so: “We’re in a time when a single message can up-end relationships.”

No surprise, then, that the last words reflected 1997’s conclusion: “Diplomacy is still a contact sport.”

Illustrations: Internet meme rewriting Wikipedia’s Alice and Bob page explaining man-in-the-middle attacks with the names Hegseth, Waltz, and Goldberg, referencing the Signal snafu.

What we talk about when we talk about computers

The climax of Nathan Englander‘s very funny play What We Talk About When We Talk About Anne Frank sees the four main characters play a game – the “Anne Frank game” – that two of them invented as children. The play is on at the Marylebone Theatre until February 15.

The plot: two estranged former best friends in a New York yeshiva have arranged a reunion for themselves and their husbands. Debbie (Caroline Catz), has let her religious attachment lapse in the secular environs of Miami, Florida, where her husband, Phil (Joshua Malina), is an attorney. Their college-age son, Trevor (Gabriel Howell), calls the action.

They host Hasidic Shosh (Dorothea Myer-Bennett) and Yuri (Simon Yadoo), formerly Lauren and Mark, whose lives in Israel and traditional black dress and, in Shosh’s case, hair-covering wig, have left them unprepared for the bare arms and legs of Floridians. Having spent her adult life in a cramped apartment with Yuri and their eight daughters, Shosh is astonished at the size of Debbie’s house.

They talk. They share life stories. They eat. And they fight: what is the right way to be Jewish? Trevor asks: given climate change, does it matter?

So, the Anne Frank game: who among your friends would hide you when the Nazis are coming? The rule that you must tell the truth reveals the characters’ moral and emotional cores.

I couldn’t avoid up-ending this question. There are people I trust and who I *think* would hide me, but it would often be better not to ask them. Some have exceptionally vulnerable families who can’t afford additional risk. Some I’m not sure could stand up to intensive questioning. Most have no functional hiding place. My own home offers nowhere that a searcher for stray humans wouldn’t think to look, and no opportunities to create one. With the best will in the world, I couldn’t make anyone safe, though possibly I could make them temporarily safer.

But practical considerations are not the game. The game is to think about whether you would risk your life for someone else, and why or why not. It’s a thought experiment. Debbie calls it “a game of ultimate truth”.

However, the game is also a cheat, in that the characters have full information about all parts of the story. We know the Nazis coming for the Frank family are unquestionably bent on evil, because we know the Franks’ fates when they were eventually found. It may be hard to tell the truth to your fellow players, but the game is easy to think about because it’s replete with moral clarity.

Things are fuzzier in real life, even for comparatively tiny decisions. In 2012, the late film critic Roger Ebert mulled what he would do if he were a Transport Security Administration agent suddenly required to give intimate patdowns to airline passengers unwilling to go through the scanner. Ebert considered the conflict between moral and personal distaste and TSA officers’ need to keep their reasonably well-paid jobs with health insurance benefits. He concluded that he hoped he’d quit rather than do the patdowns. Today, such qualms are ancient history; both scanners and patdowns have become normalized.

Moral and practical clarity is exactly what’s missing as the Department of Government Efficiency arrives in US government departments and agencies to demand access to their computer systems. Their motives and plans are unclear, as is their authority for the access they’re demanding. The outcome is unknown.

So, instead of a vulnerable 13-year-old girl and her family, what if the thing under threat is a computer? Not the sentient emotional robot/AI of techie fantasy but an ordinary computer system holding boring old databases. Or putting through boring old payments. Or underpinning the boring old air traffic control system. Do you see a computer or the millions of people whose lives depend on it? How much will you risk to protect it? What are you protecting it from? Hinder, help, quit?

Meanwhile, DOGE is demanding that staff allow its young coders to attach unauthorized servers, take control of websites. In addition: mass firings, and a plan to do some sort of inside-government AI startup.

DOGE itself appears to be thinking ahead; it’s told staff to avoid Slack while awaiting a technology that won’t be subject to FOIA requests.

The more you know about computers the scarier this all is. Computer systems of the complexity and accuracy of those the US government has built over decades are not easily understood by incoming non-experts who have apparently been visited by the Knowledge Fairy. After so much time and effort on security and protecting against shadowy hackers, the biggest attack – as Mike Masnick calls it – on government systems is coming from inside the house in full view.

Even if “all” DOGE has is read-only access as Treasury claims – though Wired and Talking Points Memo have evidence otherwise – those systems hold comprehensive sensitive information on most of the US population. Being able to read – and copy? – is plenty bad enough. In both fiction (Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale) and fact (IBM), computers have been used to select populations to victimize. Americans are about to find out they trusted their government more than they thought.

Illustration: Changing a tube in the early computer ENIAC (via Wikimedia).

Wendy M. Grossman is the 2013 winner of the Enigma Award. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. Stories about the border wars between cyberspace and real life are posted occasionally during the week at the net.wars Pinboard – or follow on Twitter.

Outbound

As the world and all knows by now, the UK is celebrating this year’s American Independence Day by staging a general election. The preliminaries are mercifully short by US standards, in that the period between the day it was called and the day the winners will be announced is only about six weeks. I thought the announcement would bring more sense of relief than it did. Instead, these six weeks seem interminable for two reasons: first, the long, long wait for the announcement, and second, the dominant driver for votes is largely negative – voting against, rather than voting for.

Labour, which is in polling position to win by a lot, is best served by saying and doing as little as possible, lest a gaffe damage its prospects. The Conservatives seem to be just trying not to look as hopeless as they feel. The only party with much exuberance is the far-right upstart Reform, which measures success in terms of whether it gets a larger share of the vote than the Conservatives and whether Nigel Farage wins a Parliamentary seat on his eighth try. And the Greens, who are at least motivated by genuine passion for their cause, and whose only MP is retiring this year. For them, sadly, success would be replacing her.

Particularly odd is the continuation of the trend visible in recent years for British right-wingers to adopt the rhetoric and campaigning style of the current crop of US Republicans. This week, they’ve been spinning the idea that Labour may win a dangerous “supermajority”. “Supermajority” has meaning in the US, where the balance of powers – presidency, House of Representatives, Senate – can all go in one party’s direction. It has no meaning in the UK, where Parliament is sovereign. All it means is Labour could wind up with a Parliamentary majority so large that they can pass any legislation they want. But this has been the Conservatives’ exact situation for the last five years, ever since the 2019 general election gave Boris Johnson a majority of 86. We should probably be grateful they largely wasted the opportunity squabbling among themselves.

This week saw the launch, day by day, of each party manifesto in turn. At one time, this would have led to extensive analysis and comparisons. This year, what discussion there is focuses on costs: whose platform commits to the most unfunded spending, and therefore who will raise taxes the most? Yet my very strong sense is that few among the electorate are focused on taxes; we’d all rather have public services that work and an end to the cost-of-living crisis. You have to be quite wealthy before private health care offers better value than paying taxes. But here may lie the explanation for both this and the weird Republican-ness of 2024 right-wing UK rhetoric: they’re playing to the same wealthy donors.

In this context, it’s not surprising that there’s not much coverage of what little the manifestos have to say about digital rights or the Internet. The exception is Computer Weekly, which finds the Conservatives promising more of the same and Labour offering a digital infrastructure plan, which includes building data centers and easing various business regulations but not to reintroduce the just-abandoned Data Protection and Digital Information bill.

In the manifesto itself: “Labour will build on the Online Safety Act, bringing forward provisions as quickly as possible, and explore further measures to keep everyone safe online, particularly when using social media. We will also give coroners more powers to access information held by technology companies after a child’s death.” The latter is a reference to recent cases such as that of 14-year-old Molly Russell, whose parents fought for five years to gain access to her Instagram account after her death.

Elsewhere, the manifesto also says, “Too often we see families falling through the cracks of public services. Labour will improve data sharing across services, with a single unique identifier, to better support children and families.”

“A single unique identifier” brings a kind of PTSD flashback: the last Labour government, in power from 1997 to 2010, largely built the centralized database state, and was obsessed with national ID cards, which were finally killed by David Cameron’s incoming coalition government. At the time, one of the purported benefits was streamlining government interaction. So I’m suspicious: this number could easily be backed by biometrics and checked via phone apps on the spot, anywhere and grow into…?

In terms of digital technologies, the LibDems mostly talk about health care, mandating interoperability for NHS systems and improving both care and efficiency. That can only be assessed if the detail is known. Also of interest: the LibDems’ proposed anti-SLAPP law, increasingly needed.

The LibDems also commit to advocate for a “Digital Bill of Rights”. I’m not sure it’s worth the trouble: “digital rights” as a set of civil liberties separate from human rights is antiquated, and many aspects are already enshrined in data protection, competition, and other law. In 2019, under the influence of then-deputy leader Tom Watson, this was a Labour policy. The LibDems are unlikely to have any power; but they lead in my area.

I wish the manifestos mattered and that we could have a sensible public debate about what technology policy should look like and what the priorities should be. But in a climate where everyone votes to get one lot out, the real battle begins on July 5, when we find out what kind of bargain we’ve made.

Illustrations: Polling station in Canonbury, London, in 2019 (via Wikimedia).