Number 10 has had Video Conferencing since 1998 (I set it up with college and received first call from there), was H320 via ISDN2 affair and had dedicated black box encryption unit GCHQ supplied and dealt with. DOH (Department of Health) also had dedicated VC rooms as did all the regional officers and MCU bridging for multi point conferencing was outsourced when needed. All main DOH sites could do upto 384 with bonded ISDN line (UK ISDN was 64k per channel and seperate D channel, no bit stealing going on here).

That without a doubt all changed many times and somewhat supprised they are using Zoom, and would of thought at least would of contracted to run their own private server connected via VPN. Very supprised and when American politicians all loved their blackberry's, they had their own dedicated servers they controlled access to, supplied by RIM.

But the DOH and all the other government departments are entities unto themselves, and I'm not that up on anything the last couple of decades, but suspect that there isn't any common solution to enable what they need to do for remote working in isolation. I'm sure much will change after this. Also fairly sure GCHQ probably bashing their heads on the table.

But I can see how they got to where they are, knowing aspects of government workings and departmental fencing, still - does kinda make you go WTF still.

They'll undoubtedly have new iterations of that, based on the same premise that they install and own the kit at each end.

I suspect Zoom just happens to be the choice this particular group has settled on. While across government people have been scrabbling to just make something work now that security's previous modus operandi is being trumped by the need to let people work from home.

Government even more than the private sector have been slow to allow for home working. I'm hopeful this will change that.

I think video chatting with normal citizens would be quite difficult if you expect them to install VPN's and special video conference software that probably only works with gov.uk accounts. Grabbing a random laptop, connecting to the internet and using zoom sounds a lot easier.

The link shared by @verytrivial to Boris Johnson’s twitter account isn’t showing “normal citizens”, it is showing the executive branch of the UK, plus an account identified only as “iPhone” who has their camera and microphone switched off.

Dominic Cummings?

In 2020 open source conferencing software requires ZERO software apart from any recent browser or login.

e.g. https://meet.jit.si/hellozoomhowareyou

>Also fairly sure GCHQ probably bashing their heads on the table.

Not nearly hard enough. Not even close to hard enough. They need help with that, possibly with heavy machinery.

I worked on a minor, non-secure, tangentially GHCQ-aligned project. They're the most risk averse organisation I've ever met. Like, pathologically risk averse. I'd bet a small mortgage they had no oversight of that call.

> > Also fairly sure GCHQ probably bashing their heads on the table.

Core parts of GCHQ might love the potential honey pot. But their offshoot NCSC [1] will be table-flipping big time.

* [1] https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/

There is absolutely now way GCHQ signed off on this.

And yet they are powerless. Back to recording private conversations like the Stasi then. What a wonderful institution. They're useful how, exactly?

Not smacking their heads into the table nearly hard enough. Not even close.

That hyperbole might be an improvement.

Literally copying the literal Stasi approach to spying (not the rest, just spying) would simultaneously improve the quality of the data and reduce the negative side effects relative to the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

By definition, in their line of work if you knew exactly how useful and effective they were they would not be doing their job properly. They report to the UK government, not to you and not to me even though I am a UK citizen (as you may be, I don't know). They have worked for governments lead by or including all three main political parties in the UK and they all decided they were useful enough to them to keep, in pursuing their goals on behalf of the people who elected them. That's good enough for me.

But we do know how effective they aren't. And we do know that they have placed themselves above the law. If that doesn't concern you it really should.

The macho pose that comes out everytime someone suggests they should be subject to, you know, the law and behave better than Stalin's henchmen is very worrying.

So who is the politician who will is effective enough to provide true oversight and rein them in when required.

Name that politician. Any party.

Do you see the problem now?

>...and behave better than Stalin's henchmen

Yes see, this is why almost nobody in the general population takes opinions like yours at all seriously.

A hydraulic press could be useful here, I think.

In general (moreso focused on the EU than the Brits) I've never understood why the EU doesn't pump a billion a year, or a billion worth of dev hours a year into open source. That's an absolutely tiny, almost infitismal amount of EU budget (and even tinier for most member states their budget) and it would allow them to get out of the noose of closed source corporate support contracts and being beholden to foreign companies. Imagine how much a billion a year would accomplish spread over projects like LibreOffice, Matrix/Riot, an EU Linux distro, etc.

Whenever the government doles out money, the incentives are to do it in return for political favours. To counter that, various processes and institutions enforce checks and balances and accountability. In practice, that takes the form of grant applications, tendering, and the like. That then attracts a bunch of grifters who want to effectively steal the government's money, so the grant process get longer and more complex, and things get more bureaucratic with heavy-handed checks and balances.

If a government anointed any given handful of OS organizations as preferred benefactors of donations, I'd expect grifters to infiltrate those organizations and parasitically siphon off the funds one way or another.

Incentives matter. Government incentives are to be popular, or attract the support of other people who are popular or influential. Being efficient or effective is only a small part of that. I don't know that there's a good solution to the incentive problem.

> If a government anointed any given handful of OS organizations as preferred benefactors of donations, I'd expect grifters to infiltrate those organizations and parasitically siphon off the funds one way or another.

I’d expect companies like Raytheon, Cerner, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and HPE/CSC/DXC to win a supermajority of those contracts.

They probably would not even bid. Working on an OS project is fundamentally providing labor hours. Not high margin, no lock in, no investment and high profit tail on the business. It would end up going to little companies providing bodies at a low labor rate.

No way if those companies had to OS their code. You could pump money into OS slowly by making government departments pay a royalty to the maintainers/projects they work with. Things such as Drupal, Tomcat etc.

Maybe because it wouldn’t solve the problem? Building a great product requires so much more than just the money needed to do it. If money was the only thing required, no startup would probably exist and everything would be built by either governments or large corporations.

Well the idea would of course be to use the budget to invest into suitable European startups. To create a market, where startups could operate and innovate.

EU already does more than that, together with funding they get in touch with FOSS developers.

Please check https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eu-fossa-2/news/how-c...

The reason the "year of the Linux desktop" hasn't happened yet and open source hasn't conquered the consumer world isn't because of the lack of money. It's because none of the projects have a goal per-se; everyone works in their corner, on their own time, mostly just scratching their own itch. Donating money to them won't solve this problem. There's also a lack of certain skill sets like user experience design, project management, branding, etc.

If the EU wants an open-source conferencing solution they have to do it in-house (whether from scratch or fork an existing solution) and treat it like a business with a clear objective and actual employees (instead of benevolent devs donating their time & effort) including positions which open source projects often deem unnecessary like UI & UX design, and so on.

It's not billions, but the EU is funding some open source software. https://hexus.net/tech/news/software/125747-14-open-source-p...

I think France is also funding/developing Matrix.

FOSSA focuses on security audits, not development per se.

There's also EU Public License (EUPL). One notable example of software that uses it is Pi-hole.

One more interesting thing I can think of is Joinup, whose idea is to share solutions between administrations in the EU: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/

You can self-host the video/audio parts of Zoom

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201363093-Deployin...

Yeah, but you have take your computer to the IT team.