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

Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 386 posts

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#191

Post by 6r17 »

freedomben wrote: post #164
pretzel5297 wrote: post #74

[flagged]

While I agree with your comment at a high level, simply saying it's the parents job k thx bai is not going to cut it. Parents have to have the tools we need to do our jobs. I don't want the government touching it with a 10 foot pole, and no adults should have to give up their freedoms (these kids will be adults some day after all, so even if we're doing it "for the kids" we need to consider the world we're building f…

You have stated everything in your answer. I want to point out that the problematic starts with who controls the safety. Yes tech-constructors should be obligated to build their software such that the end-user can exercise any kind of required control and yes the parent should be liable. None of this require the government forcing identity through the OS layer.

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#192

Post by kavok »

phatfish wrote: post #175
notrealyme123 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be to overly reductive, but you could use the same argument for drugs and weapons.

It's not being reductive at all. I'm certain parent commentor doesn't have kids so they don't care. If someone was using the street outside their house to deal drugs and causing problems they would be happy for the police to "regulate" that activity. It's just selfishness. "I want some privacy utopia on the internet (which can no longer exist, the internet isn't the place of the 90s and early 00s), so your kids can b…

The example you give doesn’t really track. If a drug dealer is outside the entrance of your home it’s completely unavoidable. A kid looking at adult material online? Entirely within the control of the parents. We already have filtering and monitoring software.

I know several parents that limit screen time, require screen usage be restricted to public areas of the home, have parental controls and filtering operating etc.. some of the parents I know won’t even let their kids watch a movie unless they screen it first.

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#193

Post by mjevans »

gorgoiler wrote: post #154
tlogan wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think parents are the one pushing these controls. They are busy raising the kids.

There’s an alternate view that parents are very much in support of centralized policy. When policy is left up to individual families — little Johnny X has an iPhone but little Timmy Y doesn’t — the creep towards everyone having a phone begins. When, instead, the school board bans phones it’s much easier for the conservative majority of parents to hold the line.

I'm more fine with schools banning frivolous use of tech devices on school grounds during school hours.

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#194

Post by hankerapp »

globular-toast wrote: post #14

This is a fairly difficult problem. I think the internet should be for adults only, like many other things. But we've fucked up by giving children internet access and it's going to be hard to undo it. I think rather than fighting these measures we need to work on alternatives because keeping children off the internet is a good idea, we just need to implement it in a good way. What about just banning phones for childr…

[flagged]

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#195

Post by pocksuppet »

pretzel5297 wrote: post #74

[flagged]

That is a thought-terminating cliche. Everyone has some responsibility to everyone else. That's what living in a society means.

If Facebook decided to start showing hardcore porn to people it identifies as being under 14, would you blame the parents for letting the kids use Facebook, and not blame Facebook? If you would blame Facebook, that means you believe Facebook has (at least some) responsibility.

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#196

Post by pocksuppet »

Xelbair wrote: post #140
miki123211 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm against any kind of age verification legislation, but this is a really bad argument. It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly." In theory, one could implement age verification by negligent parent imprisonment, in practice, I don't think that would work, and definitely not in all cases. If we accept the premise that children having unfettered access to the int…

>It doesn't answer the question of "what do we do about parents that don't do their job properly." Like with normal cases - have court go over this. But decision if any form of age lock should be implemented or not is up to parents. You cannot just shift argument to "you HAVE to restrict children from internet or else!"

What about the California version, where the government says you HAVE to offer parents the choice to restrict their children from the internet or not? That seems like a pretty reasonable middle ground, and solves the actual problems without denying privacy.

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#197

Post by pocksuppet »

coldtea wrote: post #156
therealpygon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just my opinion but… I’m all for helping people in the situations that aren’t of their own creation, so using the excuse “what are they supposed to do” doesn’t really fit for me? The first option is to use a condom if they are in a bad financial situation. It’s been amazing how every time I’ve used one, I haven’t had a child. When did we stop making people responsible for their choices? I’m not against assistance, I’…

> The first option is to use a condom if they are in a bad financial situation. It’s been amazing how every time I’ve used one, I haven’t had a child. That's what they've been doing in unprecedented numbers. Which via demographic collapse is going to cause an even worse crisis, economic, social, political, and more, further down the line.

It's also why some political factions are trying to ban condoms. Often the same factions that are trying to ban VPNs.

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#198

Post by jonhohle »

SeanDav wrote: post #145
pretzel5297 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't hold parents responsible for most neglect. Why is this special?

I would hardly define allowing your child access to the internet as neglect. Like anything else, like crossing the street for example, there are dangers that can be mitigated against by education by parents and schools. The government is vastly overreaching in this and quite frankly if one argues that this is a good thing, then where to draw the line? Will we want to see government legislation for every possible perm…

Imagine having unrestricted access to meth. For the vast majority of the population, they’d continue to be productive members of society. For some, limited use might help them function better. But for a few, it would completely decimate their lives and impact the lives of many around them. They have absolutely no ability to manage their use, and oh, yeah, they’re also children.

Some will experience a significant down regulation of dopamine receptors caused by the constant artificial reward stimulus. As tolerance builds, more is needed for longer to get the same response, while the ability to function normally becomes more difficult. That’s screen addiction, not meth.

We regulate most things with that potential, even if it only affects a small percentage. About 1% of the population struggles with meth. 6-10% with internet related addictions and more like 40% among youth.

120 years ago, opium, alcohol, marijuana were a free for all. There was similar opposition to their control. Now it’s accepted as a public health benefit and most people would probably be shocked at how recent these became regulated.

My elementary aged kids can’t use “safe search” without being exposed to pornography, extreme violence, Five Nights at Epstein’s, flat earther’s, etc. Tech company’s have failed to create a safe product and when that goes on for long enough, the government steps in.

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#199

Post by mr-wendel »

Here is my beef. I'm pro-VPN. The ability to gain more control over who can track your online communication is a net-positive to me, personally and philosophically. However, I can't justify their existence from a utilitarian perspective.

Practically speaking, when I look at the actual number of people affected by VPN I estimate that:

  - Very low: Protecting political activists and dissidents
  - Low: Circumvention of overzealous blocking and surveillance
  - Low-to-Medium: Hiding abusive and malicious behavior
  - Medium: Additional layers of trust and network security (mostly business related, which makes it tangental to the consumer VPN market)
  - VERY High: Enabling piracy and avoiding geo-content restrictions (no judgment on good-vs-bad, just asserting magnitude)
I believe that management at VPN companies are extremely pro-consumer protection (if only because their cash flows depend on this). I absolutely trust the system and network administrators. They don't want to track or look at the data flows because the odds of seeing something nasty is quite high. I have a fair amount of professional industry experience to back this up.

So... conundrum! If I take the position that piracy-related stuff isn't a net drag and that business VPN use is fundamentally a separate beast, VPNs in this context are hard to justify.

Re: Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools

#200

Post by pocksuppet »

kavok wrote: post #192
phatfish wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not being reductive at all. I'm certain parent commentor doesn't have kids so they don't care. If someone was using the street outside their house to deal drugs and causing problems they would be happy for the police to "regulate" that activity. It's just selfishness. "I want some privacy utopia on the internet (which can no longer exist, the internet isn't the place of the 90s and early 00s), so your kids can b…

The example you give doesn’t really track. If a drug dealer is outside the entrance of your home it’s completely unavoidable. A kid looking at adult material online? Entirely within the control of the parents. We already have filtering and monitoring software. I know several parents that limit screen time, require screen usage be restricted to public areas of the home, have parental controls and filtering operating e…

If a drug dealer is outside the entrance of your home you can avoid it by not leaving your home. What if every time you turn on the computer it shows objectionable content? It's easily avoidable by not turning on the computer. Same argument. Is it a reasonable one?
Post reply on HN