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

UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 499 posts

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#161

Post by danparsonson »

iamacyborg wrote: post #116
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the media that shows the UK locking up old ladies and people in wheelchairs for speaking out publicly against ongoing UK support for genocide (among other "speech offenses").

You might be missing some important context, namely that they’re doing so under the guise of a proscribed organisation.

For anyone like me who is not up to date with this news:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/uk-palestine...

> “The decision appears disproportionate and unnecessary. It limits the rights of many people involved with and supportive of Palestine Action who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,” the High Commissioner said. “As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law.” > > Since the UK Government’s ban came into effect on 5 July, at least 200 people have been arrested under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, many of them while attending peaceful protests.

So it seems you're also missing important context when you wave the whole thing away because "it's a proscribed organisation" - that proscription is in fact another example of government overreach.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#162

Post by jjgreen »

Digit-Al wrote: post #139
cj wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Daily Mail was close to tabloid status (or a bit above). Aren’t they banned from being a citation on Wikipedia?

The Daily Mail is frequently referred to as either 'The Daily Fail' or 'The Daily Heil' (referring to the fact they supported Oswald Mosley and his fascist ideals, and remain very right wing). It is not a quality publication by any means.

TFA: https://review.gale.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/hurrah-fo...

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#163

Post by tormeh »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #134
kubb wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallel realities. Over here it seems like the US is a dystopia, with how hostile their leadership is to democratic institutions and how greatly it empowers oligarchs. They think that European countries (or commonly just "Europe") are about to arrest all citizens for criticizing politicians. "Europe" must be saved from their leftist fascist regimes. For now using propaganda. Soon militarily.

Didn't Germany just make it illegal to insult politicians?

It's illegal to insult anyone in Germany, and has been for a long time. Libel, slander, and insults are all criminal (not civil) offences. I know what you're thinking: "That sounds crazy" - Yeah, it kinda is. In practice this is rarely enforced, as the offended party must file a formal complaint and most people have better things to do.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#165

Post by chihuahua »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #134
kubb wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallel realities. Over here it seems like the US is a dystopia, with how hostile their leadership is to democratic institutions and how greatly it empowers oligarchs. They think that European countries (or commonly just "Europe") are about to arrest all citizens for criticizing politicians. "Europe" must be saved from their leftist fascist regimes. For now using propaganda. Soon militarily.

Didn't Germany just make it illegal to insult politicians?

No, that has been illegal for a long time.

It's being enforced more these days, perhaps because social media makes it more tempting and easier to insult politicians in a manner where it can be easily detected. In the old days, you'd have to hand out flyers or get your letter to the editor published in a newspaper, in order to insult politicians where they could notice, and even then there was no way to automatically detect it. But when people insult politicians on social media, it's an extremely low bar for the effort required, both to do it, and to detect it.

If someone were to insult me on social media, I'd never know about it, because I'm not constantly monitoring Twitter. But some politicians pay some agency to constantly monitor Twitter etc, and then they file complaints about everyone they catch in the act, and then the jackbooted police kick down the perpetrators' doors and confiscate their phones and computers.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#166

Post by iamacyborg »

4ndrewl wrote: post #152
tekla wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr... > Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day. This marks an almost 58 per cent rise in arrests since before the pandemic. In 2019, forces logged 7,734 detentions.

In England and Wales there are 85k people serving custodial sentences and 250k community sentences. 12k seems significant, if true.

Arrests are not the same thing as imprisonment or community sentences.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#167

Post by reliabilityguy »

bawolff wrote: post #154
nateabele wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many arrests does it take to chill free speech?

How many were for politcal speech as opposed to say threatening to murder someone?

I would say even one is too many.

The law was written in such a way intentionally to suppress speech. People who wrote it ain’t stupid.

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#168

Post by Forgeties79 »

piker wrote: post #94
omh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is based on statistics for the Malicious Communications Act. That includes people sending, for example, threatening messages to an ex partner. Not all of them are online posts, in fact probably a minority

That's what would be reasonably expected, but it's not backed up by the information. > The total arrest figures are likely to be far higher because eight forces failed to respond to freedom of information requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second largest force in the UK. Some forces also included arrests for “threatening” messages, though these do not fall under the specified section…

Maybe I am reading these wrong, but it doesn’t appear to me these sources indicate that a significant number of people are being arrested for “speech offenses,” which I’m guessing you are using as shorthand for statements akin to those that would fall under “free speech” in the US. If I’m not seeing it or I am not correctly defining what you mean, feel free to correct me. I’m having to make some assumptions here

Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16

#170

Post by ben_w »

mosura wrote: post #149
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The proscription is ridiculous They broke into a military base. If that was sanctioned by the organisation, they should be shut down.

Exposing the military for being an inept paper tiger is a truly heinous crime.

I think it's general knowledge that the UK military is a paper tiger, I think Charlie Stross said something about it being enough to defend one small village or something like that (he occasionally comments on this site so may correct me).

I think that damaging what little remains of its defences, which may exist mostly to keep the nukes safe so nobody tries anything, is still a really bad idea. Especially given that the US is increasingly unstable and seems like it may stop responding to calls from assistance from anyone else in NATO, and the UK isn't in the EU any more and therefore can't ask the entire EU for help either just the bits that are also in NATO. Theoretically the UK could also ask Canada for help, but right now it seems more likely that Canada will be asking all of NATO except for the USA for military aid to keep the USA out.

(What strange days, to write that without it being fiction…)

Post reply on HN