Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

cyberinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 467 posts

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#121

Post by dryarzeg »

Jtarii wrote: post #65
JoshTriplett wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Within the EU, multiple attempts at pushing changes in opposition to this have been proposed, debated, voted on (and rejected), as democracies do. If 51% of people want to do something wrong, they should do it to themselves and leave the other 49% alone. Democracy is not an excuse for doing the wrong thing and going "oh well, guess people want it".

70% is a more likely figure https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-back-online-safety-acts-... >Almost seven in ten (69%) support age verification checks on platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and pornography. Sometimes the majority is going to make a decision that you do not like, oh well, that is the cost of living in a democracy. People in "terminally online" spaces like H…

>>Almost seven in ten (69%) support age verification checks on platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and pornography.

>>eating disorders

I'm genuinely sorry, but... wait, what? Okay, suicide, somewhat understandable (although some forums where people just share their feelings are endangered by this). Same applies to self-harm. Pornography - well, at least I can understand the motive/justification, although I don't welcome such intrusions in personal privacy. But eating disorders? What? I'm sorry, WHAT? Where's the reasons behind this? Any adequate justification? I apologize, again, maybe I don't understand the thing, but how eating disorders ended up in the same line as suicide, self-harm, pornography and similar?

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#122

Post by balamatom »

skeptic_ai wrote: post #23
JV00 wrote: post #16

Perhaps these legislators are addicted to porn and don't want their children to do to themselves the same they have done. Would explain their obsession and relentlessness to get this done. It's just a pity they are destroying the internet while doing that. They should be attacking the companies making money from porn instead. And by the way porn can damage your mind even after 18 so age verification is not a real sol…

Porn or social media or fake news destroy kids brain more? I can’t even tell

Parents destroy kids' brains the most.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#123

Post by userbinator »

rufasterisco wrote: post #69
thunderbong wrote: post #40

I have a question that's been going through my mind - Why is age verification connected with identity verification? I understand why the former is not possible with the latter, but my question is - Whichever entity is responsible for the verification can just pass on the age verification confirmation without passing through any of the other details, right? Am I mistaken here? Because if this was possible, I could sti…

From a tech perspective it has been a solved problem since about a decade ago, via DID (decentralised identities) and their Verifiable Proofs. The EU digital wallet framework is built around those, and your suggested scenario is a first class citizen. It is now moving from the academic/research world, to the political field, and feedback/pressure from both commercial groups and political agendas is muddling the field…

It's a "solved problem" that didn't ever need solving in the first place.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#124

Post by balamatom »

eloisant wrote: post #51
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you actually know people that will just give you their phone so you can watch porn? They don't ask for it, they take it when you're busy or sleeping. Teens certainly weren't asking for Dad's VHS tapes or magazines when I was a kid. I suppose this problem is solveable, too, though. Mandatory biometric locks on every device capable of accessing the internet, why not? > That's not the right quote for this case. It…

By your logic, my kids are going to find a way to smoke weed anyway so I might as well give them some, right?

Your children would certainly cherish and respect you for it.

Many such cases, in fact! Which you of course don't know about. Because anti-prohibitionist narratives don't cause Number to Go Up.

What's safer: if you were to provide them with secure access to a substance that is risky only when used irresponsibly - or if they had to acquire it illegally off the street, and were to consume it in some sketchy environs away from your oversight?

On the other hand, setting boundaries meant to be crossed - such as a restriction on substance use that "they will violate anyway" - is parental betrayal, and risks bricking your child.

Also many such cases! Which you also "don't know" about. Because you prefer to consider unhappy people less-than-human, and parents are only happy to sweep their failures under the rug. Even if it means giving their child to the torturers.

From one sentence you wrote "as if it's obvious", I can see that your sense of ownership over your progeny trumps your concern for your children's safety.

A lot of resources go into subsidizing your unsustainable lifestyle, which you yourself only tolerate thanks to constantly impairing your cognition but perfectly legally.

Similarly, a lot of resources go into silencing and/or exterminating people like me; yet, last time I checked I was still kicking and spitting.

Both of these economic dynamics, ultimately, serve to perpetuate a multigenerational Ponzi scheme which treats humans as property. Notice people getting into debt younger and younger? Yeah, that.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#125

Post by zero-hp »

nirui wrote: post #109

In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too. This simple policy then goes on to silence most individual publisher(/self-media) and consolidated the industry into the hands of the few, with no opportunity left for smaller entrepreneurs. This is arguably much worse than allowing children to wat…

Not only in China. Russian internet cenzorship also started as a "children protection" measure.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#126

Post by applfanboysbgon »

Jtarii wrote: post #119
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cloak surveillance laws in "think of the children" to rally support from the masses Politicians lie to voters to get them to accept things they would otherwise not accept. That was literally central to the entire comment you were replying to. "But the children" and "But national security" are essentially a free pass to enact any legislation a dishonest politician wants with support from a population that cannot sta…

>Off the top of my head, Trump's corporate tax cuts in 2017 might be one of the most clearcut examples of something that benefitted corporations over individuals, was lobbied for by corporations, and was high profile enough to have public polling while being so blatantly unjustifiable that said polling demonstrated the public was clearly against it. The 2017 tax cut law was extremely popular among republican voters,…

I suppose that was a bad example because Republican voters don't have a single policy they stand by, only party loyalty. eg. Republican voters were staunchly opposed to war in Iran until Trump did it and then support skyrocketed.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#127

Post by drysine »

pembrook wrote: post #103
rswail wrote: post #99

Governments already have everyone's ID, including DOB. They say that the problem is non-adults accessing adult sites and services. So therefore, the sites need to know that users are over 18 (or the selected government age). There should be a standardized government ID service/API that allows a person to let it disclose their age (or other user selected information) to a requesting site/service. That's all that is ne…

> if the government ID service has appropriate 2FA and security. You're kidding right?

Why?

In Russia we have gosuslugi.ru (state services), which nowadays requires 2FA and hasn't been compromised in any major way so far.

Among other things they provide a way for a third party to use it as identification service and a user chooses which data about himself he wants to share. No anonymity, though, and I don't see how it can be implemented so that the verification provider doesn't know which service is requiring age verification.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#128

Post by MandieD »

qnpnpmqppnp wrote: post #19

This title seems misleading. The EP paper appears to be highlighting the existence of a debate regarding VPN. Relevant quote: "Some argue that this is a loophole in the legislation that needs closing and call for age verification to be required for VPNs as well. In response, some VPN providers argue that they do not share information with third parties and state that their services are not intended for use by childre…

"Children's Commissioner for England"... that's not the EU. Really not the EU - they had a whole election and years-long process to leave the EU.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#129

Post by dryarzeg »

microtonal wrote: post #43
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #30

Here we go again with new restrictions on civil liberties. This is Chat Control all over again. The EU won't stop until it has access to all your data, all your messages, anything you read, save, send will be scrutinized by the the big great EU and it's little minions. Hey, at least we get the freedom of movement right?

There is no such thing as the EU wants X . There are huge differences between what the European Commission, the European Council, and the majority of the European Parliament want. Most of the anti-privacy crap hasn't happened thanks to the EU . Particular countries and lobbying groups have been pushing this through the Commission and Council and most attempts have been rejected by the EP. If we didn't have the EU, so…

> By the way, nearly all your comments on HN are about politics and all trying to sow dissent on Western (and especially European) democracies.

Disclaimer first: I'm not trying to protect him and I'm not tied to him in any possible way. But since when constantly expressing your own opinion (that's what I assume given the age of the account; maybe I'm wrong, but this seems rather like a person than a bot) is a deliberately malicious activity (as implied by your "trying to sow dissent" expression)? If their opinion doesn't match yours, it doesn't mean that they're evil or something similar. It just means that your views are different.

Post reply on HN