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

House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

ispreview.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#101

Post by gruez »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #43
gruez wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

authorizations don't show up on statements, but still allow you to verify the card is valid

Authorizations may not show on statements; but they are full well in financial records which could come up in court or a divorce claim later. Credit card companies are absolutely not allowed to turn a blind eye to any kind of usage.

>but they are full well in financial records which could come up in court or a divorce claim later

Does this even matter in the age of no-fault divorces? Is any court going to sanction a spouse for having watched porn?

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#102

Post by PaulKeeble »

dlisboa wrote: post #48
armada651 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this becomes law, then yes. But then people will turn to VPS providers instead and set up their own VPNs, which will then prompt a law to demand age verification before renting any server. I wonder how far they're willing to go down this rabbit hole.

All of this would easily be solved by just banning social media. Nothing will convince me they are a net-positive to society.

Severely disabled people need social media to get any form of communication with others. It is a key mechanism of infrastructure that provides connection for those limit to their homes and bed, which nowadays is an increasing amount of people with Long Covid and ME/CFS patients. We are talking about 10s of millions of people here that you would cut off from each other and the wider world.

Social media isn't just bad interactions, there isn't just one twitter or reddit, its about what you choose to read and interact with and most of its not toxic its just people talking on the same topic.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#103

Post by puppycodes »

I'm always reminded of the Snowden revelations that the GCHQ was (and still is) saving, catagorizing, and performing deep packet inspection of all internet traffic.

Nothing suprises me anymore in the UK. It's been extremely dystopian for a long time.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#104

Post by bigbadfeline »

direwolf20 wrote: post #97
bigbadfeline wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you apply the logic of your comment's parent to your suggestion you'll discover that banning social media would soon lead to using any and all communication under mandatory supervision and only after an application and a written permission for every individual act of communication.

Did banning heroin soon lead to consuming any and all substances under mandatory supervision and only after an application and written permission for every individual act of consumption?

No, but they issued an umbrella ban on anabolic steroids of any kind, regardless of chemistry, even on those not invented yet. FDA criminalizes or makes prescription-only whatever they want, willy-nilly and without any consequences - drug enforcement opened the door for that.

I'm not saying that drugs should be legal, only that given perverse intensives, legitimate problems are routinely used as a Trojan horse to sneak in oppressive regulations.

In the case of communications and speech, the government's incentives for censorship, eavesdropping and control are enormous - otherwise there wouldn't be a Constitution, 1st amendment or the entire Bill of Rights that depends on it. Once the routine circumvention of these becomes acceptable, any kind of true but inconvenient for Big Brother speech will become impossible - with or without a written permit.

The manner of doing it doesn't matter, the permit was a figure of speech, kind of telling that I have to state it explicitly.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#106

Post by subscribed »

polski-g wrote: post #105

So parents can just sign up for children? What problem is this solving? If my government was censoring my child of course I'd sign up a Facebook/Mullvad account for them.

Yup, I'm signing up for my kids the moment they ask. At this point it's outrageous.

Oh, and I'm also reading on Amnesiac and other stealth VPN protocols. The only thing this will achieve, is kids' deep understand the government is hostile cluster of entities lying through their teeth.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#107

Post by subscribed »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #22
armada651 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this becomes law, then yes. But then people will turn to VPS providers instead and set up their own VPNs, which will then prompt a law to demand age verification before renting any server. I wonder how far they're willing to go down this rabbit hole.

Not necessarily - how is a kid paying for a VPS server? A personal debit card (which requires ID verification anyway, and likely has their parents able to see activity)? A personal credit card (which definitely requires ID + 18+)? Stealing their parents' card (works for like 5 days)? Does the VPS company block VPN ports without verification, similar to how most companies handle email? Do you think VPS services have a…

They can buy the server without KY paying with crypto or PayPal (11+ can have debit cards in the UK).

Or ask their parents.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#108

Post by subscribed »

lacoolj wrote: post #5

Very shallow, naive approach to child safety. This is like banning children from riding scooters on a highway. They're just going to use a bike instead. Danger still exists. VPNs are not the only way around this, so if you want to ban the "method of access" you need to be much more broad, and get the parents involved.

This is not about the child safety, please stop believing British politicians. They just say things that are supposed to be discussed and repeated.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#109

Post by epiccoleman »

causalscience wrote: post #61
epiccoleman wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With their "don't put the cat inside the microwave" stickers not sure what this means, my microwave does not have such a sticker > "coffee is too hot" lawsuits I'd encourage you to look into the case you refer to[1] and decide for yourself whether the lawsuit feels frivolous given the facts. My read is that the lawsuit was justified. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

If caring that people might burn themselves with hot water is nanny state, then caring that people might burn themselves with macdonalds coffee is also nanny state.

That argument is specious to begin with, because typically a hot water heater should be set such that its maximum temperature would not cause a burn (just like how coffee should typically be served at a temperature that is not capable of melting skin), but leaving that aside - the coffee case was a private tort case - a civil suit - and therefore does not and could not by definition support calling the country in which it occured a "nanny state".

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#110

Post by technion »

sublinear wrote: post #91
technion wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always wondered how this would go if you applied for a loan through your bank. Or a rental that wanted 'last three months financial transactions' in the application.

I'm confused by what you mean (I'm an American though). I don't think I'm unique for putting miscellaneous stuff like this on a credit card, and not even necessarily the one my bank offers. Not to hide the transaction, but because charging to debit/checking would make tracking my monthly expenses less straightforward. Payments online are also safer on credit in case a chargeback is required. Also, are you sure you do…

All the properties ive rented over the last decade required an application with "full financial transaction history" for three months. I know ive submitted a statement before where a lot of expenses were "paying off credit card" and they complained the credit card expenses werent shown. I would have to imagine a rental agent looking at months worth of pornhub spending is going to count it against you.

Ive never been hit by something like this but I have friends who have:

https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/12s8257/la...

(Maybe this is just the horrendous Australian market talking).

Post reply on HN