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

391–400 of 467 posts

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

#391

Post by tekla »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #237
ozgung wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you are asking logical questions. You are thinking and talking too much for a World citizen in 2026. "Reasoning" is a reserved word for chatbots now, so we humans are not allowed to do that anymore. We can only obey like a bot and pretend all the lies they tell are the truth. BTW I live in Turkiye where the government banned ALL the adult websites around 2008. Even as an adult you can't access them. This year the…

[flagged]

Funnily enough, on the HN zeal to prove you wrong about this, posters who dont know know about this topic dont actually realize Turkey dont give a damn about the Anglicanized name outside diplomatic context

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

#392

Post by tekla »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #374
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You must be an American? Only Americans act like they get to define what the rest of the world calls places. It’s Gulf of Mexico. Only a country of idiots would call it gulf of America.

Its so funny to see this comment considering the dozens of geogrphic features around the world where countries have wildly different names for them.

Do you think Korea refers to the Sea of Japan by that name?

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

#393

Post by Saline9515 »

roncesvalles wrote: post #369
ZetsuBouKyo wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an extreme slippery slope idea. If they want to protect children, shouldn't they sterilize everyone? Every child born, regardless of wealth will inevitably suffer injury, illness, and psychological setbacks. Therefore, the best way to protect them would be not allowing people to have children. By the way, not having children is also more eco-friendly, because an infinite series simply converges. I wonder if I’…

They should just mandate 1 spouse should stay at home (working remotely or not working) or you must hire a full-time nanny. I'm only half joking. If your kid has enough unsupervised time to be watching porn on a regular basis, wtf is going on?

The solution is obviously to force CCTV inside homes, with data analyzed and hosted in a government cloud. If you are against this proposal, you support child abuse.

And no, this money couldn't be used to improve the life of families.

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

#394

Post by Saline9515 »

vixen99 wrote: post #357
ZetsuBouKyo wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an extreme slippery slope idea. If they want to protect children, shouldn't they sterilize everyone? Every child born, regardless of wealth will inevitably suffer injury, illness, and psychological setbacks. Therefore, the best way to protect them would be not allowing people to have children. By the way, not having children is also more eco-friendly, because an infinite series simply converges. I wonder if I’…

Worth remembering that eugenics was the smart idea among many intellectuals in the earlier 20th century. The fascinating list of eminent adherents include J. Maynard Keynes, Winston Churchill, T. Roosevelt, Francis Crick, Linus Pauling, Herbert Hoover, J.H. Kellogg (of corn flake fame), Oliver Wendell Holmes, GB Shaw, Sidney Webb (early socialist, co-founder of the LSE & the Labour Party) and William Beveridge who cr…

Eugenics is double-eged sword. It can lead to mutilation on social basis and dubious science.

It can also mean that disabled parents won't have to bring to life disabled children, which is a great relief.

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

#396

Post by Saline9515 »

miohtama wrote: post #352
lemoncookiechip wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, if Politicians, Law Enforcement and Military Personnel are included and affected by all these anti-privacy laws, I'm all for it (not really). Let their daily corruption come to light by the opposition exposing all their dirty laundry (because of course they'd used the data against each other) and vice-versa over and over... and that's not gonna happen because we don't live in that world where laws apply fai…

Europol is lobbying for this. Of course, by using tax payers money.

It's amazing that they are spending billions on "think of the kids" problems, yet in many countries of the EU it's very hard to find a decent children playground in the city center.

I'm quite sure that if you asked parents, they would rather have the playground than the surveillance.

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

#397

Post by miroljub »

kelnos wrote: post #295
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wow it's pretty arrogant to tell someone how to spell their own country's name.

It's pretty arrogant for a foreigner to tell me how to spell his county name in my own language, which doesn't even have those letters in an alphabet. All while adding -stan suffix to my country name in their language.

In short, it's Turkey.

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

#398

Post by autoexec »

mcv wrote: post #342
carlosjobim wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age verification will be implemented as identity identification. And that means anything you read or write or watch or say will be tied to your identity, registered by the government and other organizations, and used against you as an individual. Do you understand now? Or will you only understand when you get fired from your job and they won't tell you the reason?

There are ways to do age verification without tying your identity to the content. A site could direct you through a proxy to the government's eID server with simply the request whether you're over 18. Because it's going through an anonymising proxy, the government has no idea what site you're visiting. You login to your eID, which confirms or denies that you're over 18. The porn site only knows what porn was watched…

> There are ways to do age verification without tying your identity to the content.

That's wishful thinking. The site would log that they sent you to verify your ID with your IP and a timestamp. The proxy server would get your identity with your IP and timestamp. Those two can can be linked. The government would know exactly who you are while also knowing where you came from and when.

Either the government would monitor the proxy or they'd just be running the proxy themselves or forcibly taking it over Room 641A style to log everything going in and out.

There is zero way to verify your identity to a website without trusting some third party with that information. There's no one in the US who is trustworthy enough or immune from being controlled by the US government so you'll always be vulnerable to having your identify exposed and it being used against you.

The best suggestion I've heard so far was scratch off cards that could be purchased anywhere in person, with cash, after presenting ID. The ID isn't logged or scanned, just manually checked by the wage slave at the counter. Even that isn't without challenges though since the cards would have codes that would likely be traceable to batches and where they were distributed to/purchased from which means that information can be checked against surveillance/facial ID/flock cameras to find out who bought them, and they can also be resold/shared online/exchanged/stolen/generated/given to others which means they won't be very effective at identifying individuals or keeping kids from seeing adult content.

The truth is that the entire point of these age verification laws is deanonymization, censorship, and control. Any theoretical scheme we might come up with that wouldn't allow for abuses will never be implemented for that reason.

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

#399

Post by LAC-Tech »

cassianoleal wrote: post #371
LAC-Tech wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> foreigners to tell us how we should write things in our own language. They did that? Where? I’m also assuming you’re from England, otherwise you’re also a foreigner speaking their language, and likely with considerable difference.

This is a genuinely dumb take and you should feel foolish for even thinking it.

Incase you dont, consider the concept of telling an Austrian that German is a foreign language for them. If this concept confuses you, I can get wikipedia links.

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

#400

Post by palata »

hnlmorg wrote: post #365
palata wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with that part. Parents cannot be responsible for what other children can do. If all the children use social media, good luck preventing your kid from participating. "It's okay, just be completely disconnected from everything they share between each other, it's not important to socialise, you can make friends when you are old". The problem with social media is that it's not okay for one kid to be disconnec…

Again, you’re talking about things in a Boolean state. Our kids have access to social media, but we also know what they have access to because we check their phones periodically. This is a far better approach than an “all or nothing” approach because we are giving the kids the freedom to learn how to use these tools maturely. But without removing any safety nets for if/when our kids (or any other kids in their social…

> Again, you’re talking about things in a Boolean state.

I am not, so either you don't understand my opinion, or you manipulate it because it's convenient.

I am not, AT ALL, saying that we should make bikes illegal to kids. But some things make sense to me: we should not sell cigarettes or alcohol to kids. "Go ahead my son, you're 13, you should make your own mistakes: try smoking for a month like your friends, and then I'll explain to you why it is a bad idea" is not how I apprehend "parenting".

I am actually saying that it is nuanced, and that it is difficult to know where to put the limit. Should cocaine be allowed to kids? Cannabis? Cigarettes? Social media? Bikes? Chocolate?

> So why are you treating social media like that?

Maybe you think that social media are like bikes, and that's your right. I think they are closer to drugs. Maybe you think everything should be legal (drugs, killing, ...) and that "parenting" is the solution to all, I don't.

Like cigarettes, the message is "you should never do it, but when you'll get older it will be your choice to do that stupid shit". That is obviously not how I treat bikes.

Post reply on HN