Earlier quoted context omitted.
It drives me nuts that local governments in the US continue to use Twitter/X to disseminate communications, despite having perfectly good web sites of their own.
Those websites aren't easy to update. I have a website of my own too, and even though I've set it up to be as painless as possible, it's always going to be easier for me to open a social media app and post. Now imagine that the local government has a website that can only be changed by contacting a web developer, who takes 1-2 business days to reply. It might not be as bad as that, but I wouldn't be surprised if that…
UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
151–160 of 213 posts
Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
then you are not using any vpn service marketed or provided in the UK . if you were to sell access to your VPS to others then you would have to do age verifications on them maybe. maybe it is still illegal, IDK, bu likely due to other laws (eg a generic "it is illegal to use workaround for X")
> then you are not using any vpn service marketed or provided in the UK. Irrelevent. See: must apply the child VPN prohibition to the provider of any relevant VPN service which is, or is likely to be— (i) offered or marketed to *persons in the* United Kingdom; (ii) provided to a significant number of persons
>“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet;
I think it would be a significant stretch to say that a provider that provisions a VPS instance is a "business providing a virtual private network".
Just because you could run a VPN, it's not the VPS provider that is offering a VPN service.
Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As for the provider, there is not prhibition on communicating with him, with or without ID. Just on him providing service to other than verifed adults. Oh okay yea I don't mean that exactly but from my original comment what I meant was that the service of VPN is still essentially just a communication layer of sorts between two devices where a middle man can sit technically. I was referring to this as still a commun…
I think unfortunately you are right. The prohibition is wide - to head off evasion. And probably they will need to widen further - to cover anything that can circumvent the social media block. One more step towards Iran. Scary indeed.
No worries, I wish I was wrong too but sadly I am just following the logic-ish that I am feeling is gonna happen, but I am happy that our confusion atleast got solved and I was able to proper explain what I am thinking.
Wrote a little poem inspired by the famous germany wwII poem-ish that I read in my history book
First they came for our social media, I didn't say anything
Then they came for our vpn, I didn't say anything (we are here)
Then they came for our vps providers, I didn't say anything (By definition a connection with VPS can still be considered a virtual private network, I don't think that they have ruled it out in the law)
My biggest fear is that this will be replicated if it turns out to be good for the people in "power"
My worries is that a single mis use of this can/will put everyone in line that nobody's safe.
I am not even sure if this rule can somehow be exploited for non UK users as UK users seems the most impacted but non UK companies would be impacted too. I mean we already had global surveillance but this is putting things into global level. First time something like this is happening in a democracy fwiw imo (atleast for VPN)
It's scary developments and I am not prepared to live through this era of privacy dystopian nightmare fuel. I hope a resistance can emerge other than the doomerism I feel right now because my point is right now its the UK citizens who are fucked by their govt. but we can just very much be likely on the chopping block too.
I know internet resistance is meh but something's better than nothing and I hope UK creates protests about this as its still not written in law (but being honest I am doomerist about it that chances of it being signed are almost 100% given that someone created a petition and it got signed in UK and they were legally forced to discuss it but somehow they didn't like wtf about the Online Safety act?)
I mean, much support to my UK friends to prevent such 1984 dystopia. (I am tired of saying 1984 but literally 1984)
Looks like a Internet resistance should be established for freedom. We privacy conscious users should combine and try to discuss more about what are some things which can be done but I must admit that I don't know the solution but I hope that a solution can come out of discussion or a clear plan of action.
Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the parents don’t see it as an issue then the state should not be forcing its way in, especially considering the harm to privacy and free speech. This is an area where reasonable people can disagree as to what the correct parenting approach is, so the state should not enforce a particular approach. If anything they should focus on making it easier for parents to set their own limits at the device level.
...except when the harm spreads far beyond the family. "We have reached an inflection point. We are facing nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media." says the Lord proposing the UK ban.
Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's like stating that there's no value in creating a financial regulator to set interest rates because the government will just tell them to set them to whatever they demand. There's still value in it.
Yes, the “value” being centralizing identity and access so OFCOM and GHCQ can finger dissenters more easily.
Tin foil aside, my issue is that they're not even good at what they're trying to do. Their policy is inconsistent with their aims and lacks technical strategy. You think they're worried about dissenters when in practice they're more worried about elections in 2029 and whatever pearl clutching users post on mumsnet.
Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's like stating that there's no value in creating a financial regulator to set interest rates because the government will just tell them to set them to whatever they demand. There's still value in it.
Firstly, I didn't even mention what the value might be. I simply pointed out that the "independent organisation" would not really be independent. Which means it won't protect anyone's privacy. Which undermines the entire point of having it. Therefore it has no value. Secondly, it is the central bank that sets the interest rate. In the UK that is the Bank of England. Secondly the government sets their mandate. They ha…
We've not had a black wednesday since this change. It has value because governments cannot be trusted to directly control interest rates. The indirection has value, politicians are forced to spend political capital in order to wrest control.
> So we can see how well that is going.
Still better than black wednesday and Norman Lamont.
Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, I didn't even mention what the value might be. I simply pointed out that the "independent organisation" would not really be independent. Which means it won't protect anyone's privacy. Which undermines the entire point of having it. Therefore it has no value. Secondly, it is the central bank that sets the interest rate. In the UK that is the Bank of England. Secondly the government sets their mandate. They ha…
> Therefore it has no value. We've not had a black wednesday since this change. It has value because governments cannot be trusted to directly control interest rates. The indirection has value, politicians are forced to spend political capital in order to wrest control. > So we can see how well that is going. Still better than black wednesday and Norman Lamont.
Secondly you seemed to not understand who set the interest rate but you are now confident in telling me about the perceived benefits of having a central bank set the interest rate. Which tells me that you just looked this all up about 10 minutes ago.
> It has value because governments cannot be trusted to directly control interest rates.
Neither can the central bank. As they are failing at their mandate of keeping inflation at 2%. The reported inflation rate is probably lower than the actual inflation rate due to CPI calculation wankery.
> The indirection has value, politicians are forced to spend political capital in order to wrest control.
To who does it have value? It doesn't benefit me (or most regular people) to have a 2% inflation rate and relatively low interest rates. It eats away the value of my savings. I now buy Gold (it hit a record high price today) and the value of my Gold and Silver has more than doubled in 3 years.
> Still better than black wednesday and Norman Lamont.
Saying it is better than a total crash isn't saying much.
Instead we have a gradual devaluing of the currency, many consumer goods are of far poorer quality (I repair my own vehicle and it is often better to get a reconditioned part than a new one), there is also "shrinkflation".
If we had a crash I actually think it would at least provide a wake up call and spur some real meaningful change.
Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the “value” being centralizing identity and access so OFCOM and GHCQ can finger dissenters more easily.
the UK already forces ISPs to hold a database of the hosts you have visited in the last three years. By implementing the laws in the way they currently are doing undermines their own legislation by pushing UK users into having a tangible reason to hide their their browsing patterns from UK networks by funneling their traffic through VPNs or other proxies to avoid age gates. Tin foil aside, my issue is that they're no…
People had tangible reasons before having to avoid age-gates. You should not have people spying on your online activity.
> Tin foil aside, my issue is that they're not even good at what they're trying to do. Their policy is inconsistent with their aims and lacks technical strategy.
Good, I don't want them to be good at what they are doing.
> You think they're worried about dissenters when in practice they're more worried about elections in 2029 and whatever pearl clutching users post on mumsnet.
They can be be worried about both. They are capable of being concerned about two different things at the same time.
Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then you are not using any vpn service marketed or provided in the UK. Irrelevent. See: must apply the child VPN prohibition to the provider of any relevant VPN service which is, or is likely to be— (i) offered or marketed to *persons in the* United Kingdom; (ii) provided to a significant number of persons
The definition section of the amendment defines a "relevant VPN service": >“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet; I think it would be a significant stretch to say that a provider that provisions a VPS instance is a "business providing a virtual private network". Just because you could run a VPN, it's not th…
Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
...except when the harm spreads far beyond the family. "We have reached an inflection point. We are facing nothing short of a societal catastrophe caused by the fact that so many of our children are addicted to social media." says the Lord proposing the UK ban.
Same moral panic that we had over TV, video games, and Pokemon cards.