Brexit agreement quoting outdated technology

[peters]

Mod note - split from here

The Brexit deal mentions Netscape Navigator as a 'modern service', so it doesn't exactly give the impression the government are looking to improve IT infrastructure to make working from home easier. If anything it suggests they want to do away with the likes of Zoom, Netflix, YouTube and social media, which Netscape Navigator wouldn't be able to support.

Brexit deal mentions Netscape browser and Mozilla Mail

Experts suggest officials saved time by copying and pasting text from old legislation.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[35B]

The Brexit deal mentions Netscape Navigator as a 'modern service', so it doesn't exactly give the impression the government are looking to improve IT infrastructure to make working from home easier. If anything it suggests they want to do away with the likes of Zoom, Netflix, YouTube and social media, which Netscape Navigator wouldn't be able to support.

Brexit deal mentions Netscape browser and Mozilla Mail

Experts suggest officials saved time by copying and pasting text from old legislation.

www.bbc.co.uk

No, it suggests copy and paste from an old agreement that no one really read as part of the negotiations. it was also for a race deal, not a sign of domestic policy priorities.

I draw precisely no conclusions about government priorities or policies from that text.

 

[peters]

No, it suggests copy and paste from an old agreement that no one really read as part of the negotiations. it was also for a race deal, not a sign of domestic policy priorities.

I draw precisely no conclusions about government priorities or policies from that text.

I draw one conclusion from your post, either you aren't so good at spotting sarcasm or you don't realise that the position we were in during the 1990s with regards to technology and the Internet was less advanced than what's now available in some of the most remote parts of Africa. It's laughable that the government gave itself 3.5 years to get Brexit done and couldn't even manage a simple update which a brief phone call between Whitehall and GCHQ could have rectified. It the deal had referred to 4 free to air TV channels being available in the UK, that would have been equally as bad.

 

[RuralRambler]

No, it suggests copy and paste from an old agreement that no one really read as part of the negotiations. it was also for a race deal, not a sign of domestic policy priorities.

I draw precisely no conclusions about government priorities or policies from that text.

Exactly. It's the same with tax law changes. It's obvious that old ideas are dusted off and copy/pasted without properly being checked over. Look at the reduction in tax relief for buy to letters a few years ago - the announcement mentioned withdrawal of MIRAS, which was something that happened over 20 years previously, so completely irrelevant today. When the announcement was made, the younger accountants around me were quickly googling "MIRAS" as they'd no idea what it was. Similar situations have arisen with other tax changes, such as using old/outdated definitions which were obsolete, but which were valid many years earlier when the tax changes were first drafted/proposed, but obviously dropped and archived.

 

[35B]

I draw one conclusion from your post, either you aren't so good at spotting sarcasm or you don't realise that the position we were in during the 1990s with regards to technology and the Internet was less advanced than what's now available in some of the most remote parts of Africa. It's laughable that the government gave itself 3.5 years to get Brexit done and couldn't even manage a simple update which a brief phone call between Whitehall and GCHQ could have rectified. It the deal had referred to 4 free to air TV channels being available in the UK, that would have been equally as bad.

I’m well aware that what’s written in the agreement is utterly out of date, and that it’s depressing that such rubbish has slipped through. I also have experience of negotiating on large contracts, and know from bitter experience how easy it is for stuff like that to slip through the net because it’s in a section that is uncontentious and can be carried forward.

As for detecting sarcasm, I’m afraid I still can’t see it in your post - whether that’s a comment on your prose or my reading can be for others to decide.

 

[peters]

I’m well aware that what’s written in the agreement is utterly out of date, and that it’s depressing that such rubbish has slipped through. I also have experience of negotiating on large contracts, and know from bitter experience how easy it is for stuff like that to slip through the net because it’s in a section that is uncontentious and can be carried forward.

As for detecting sarcasm, I’m afraid I still can’t see it in your post - whether that’s a comment on your prose or my reading can be for others to decide.

I'll have to be careful if people like you who don't realise a post suggesting a capitalist government might want to block websites which generate significant sums of money for some British businesses who advertise on the platforms for no reason, isn't being sarcastic!

However, either those who worked on the document were unaware Netscape is an old browser or they didn't think the cyber section was high priority. Some areas got faster fibre optic broadband through an EU grant, while other areas haven't received this which is one reason why broadband speeds vary so much. Given we're pulling out of the EU when an EU backed project is only partly completed and the Internet makes it easier for people to become victims of crime where the criminal is in another country, I hope it's not because the government did not think the cyber section wasn't high priority but unfortunately I've not seen any evidence of that being the case. They've seemed more bothered about points style immigration and arguing over exactly where fishing boats can and can't go then debating the really important issues. There's also a reference to a defunct encryption system in the document but that will be a bit more complicated to discuss, even if it's a more critical error than leaving in the name of a web browser which no longer exists.

 

[SS4]

This is the same government that tried to block adult content despite various technical experts saying it's not possible.

Whilst I don't think there's any malice in it I do find it indicative of carelessness that they couldn't even do a Ctrl+F to look for outdated terms.

 

[A Challenge]

Whilst I don't think there's any malice in it I do find it indicative of carelessness that they couldn't even do a Ctrl+F to look for outdated terms.

The problem with that is there are so many different outdated terms for them to look up it is nowhere near as simple as just quickly using a find tool like that.

 

[JamesT]

https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/31/brexitl_obsolete_tech_explained/ Suggests it’s not laziness, but the perils of previous agreements which listed explicit technologies. The Brexit deal replaces some of these old agreements, so they were cut and pasted in so the exact same agreement would remain in force after the transition period ended.

At some point the agreement should really be updated to specify modern encryption standards if nothing else. But doing that requires the agreement of all parties, and trying to do it in the middle of the Brexit negotiations does not seem the right time!