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

UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 213 posts

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#161

Post by pardon_me »

sdoering wrote: post #102
moritonal wrote: post #77

I don't get why the device changes the blame logic. If child-services knew a parent was constantly watching/leaving around adult-content near children, that'd be considered the parents fault. If a parent lets a kid watch anything they want on TV and the kid watches adult content, it's the parents fault. But if the parent gives the child a phone, and doesn't manage what apps they use or content they watch, now it's th…

I could just as easily turn this argument around: If my younger self, went into a store to buy a bottle of Vodka, before I came of age at 18 here in Germany, it wasn't my parents fault. It was the shop that did not check my license that was liable. If they sold me beer before I was 16, same situation. Analogous for cigarettes. Or me trying to enter an amusement arcade (with monetary gains possible, not just pinball l…

The company should be responsible for providing options to block all or part of the content, and warn users of the content type, depending on their place in the pipeline.

For example, Apple and Google should provide tools for the parents to set up a device appropriately for a child, much like the shop should not sell alcohol to underage customers. Similarly, content producers should specifically need to label content targeted for children or specially 18+, like the producer of alcohol must warn customers on the label and inform the retailers.

Parents and caretakers need information to make an informed decisions before being able to consume the media themselves. They also need some granular tools on the device to avoid banning them entirely. The burden is shared between creator, distributor and consumer.

We already had laws for this and it makes sense for some type of access control to the open internet. The shocking part is the requirement for everyone to verify ID to multiple public and private institutions, more than once per.

An analogy for the UK now would be needing ID to enter the supermarket (access the internet), ID to look at anything aimed at adults and potentially harmful such as alcohol, chemicals, sugary food, medicine etc. (know "potentially harmful" subjects exist), ID to look at anything lawfully 18+ such as alcohol and cigarettes (view the content), then ID again to make the 18+ purchase from an account needing ID to open.

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#162

Post by Quarrelsome »

FrostViper8 wrote: post #157
Quarrelsome wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I was actually directly addressing your comment about the your independent org for these identity tokens. There is no value because it cannot guarantee privacy. Therefore it has no value (at least not to me). 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 l…

It appears that you have not yet learned the lesson that perfect is the enemy of good. Just because a system doesn't meet your high expectations, doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

I'm also having trouble squaring your keen interest in the economic woes of inflation combined with your desire to have a stock market crash. Perhaps you are unaware of your bias given your portfolio, wishing to enact misery upon millions for your own personal gain. The last big crash was a major contributer the second world war, so be careful for the "meaningful change" you wish for.

> Which tells me that you just looked this all up about 10 minutes ago.

you should learn the etiquette round here, cos that ain't it. Either treat fellow commenters and their perspectives with a modicum of respect or go back to facebook. BTW, that was a swing and a miss, I lived through that period.

Don't misunderstand when I don't reply or even read your next response. Its because I don't want to talk to you anymore, because you're not interesting.

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#163

Post by chrisjj »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #153
chrisjj wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think unfortunately you are right. The prohibition is wide - to head off evasion. 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 fo…

> Then they came for our vps providers

Next they came for our IP addresses ... which is where it gets really messy, since we don't have one per user.

So, next they came waving "digital ID". Oh, wait...

:(

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#164

Post by FrostViper8 »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #162
FrostViper8 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually directly addressing your comment about the your independent org for these identity tokens. There is no value because it cannot guarantee privacy. Therefore it has no value (at least not to me). 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 l…

It appears that you have not yet learned the lesson that perfect is the enemy of good. Just because a system doesn't meet your high expectations, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I'm also having trouble squaring your keen interest in the economic woes of inflation combined with your desire to have a stock market crash. Perhaps you are unaware of your bias given your portfolio, wishing to enact misery upon millions…

> It appears that you have not yet learned the lesson that perfect is the enemy of good. Just because a system doesn't meet your high expectations, doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

That isn't what you are proposing. What you are proposing is something which has no value. I've told you why it is pointless. Saying it "has value" repeatedly doesn't change the fact that it is pointless.

> I'm also having trouble squaring your keen interest in the economic woes of inflation combined with your desire to have a stock market crash. Perhaps you are unaware of your bias given your portfolio, wishing to enact misery upon millions for your own personal gain. The last big crash was a major contributer the second world war, so be careful for the "meaningful change" you wish for.

I love it when people accuse me of wishing harm on others. I would prefer not to have to buy gold/silver and rather just put cash in my savings.

I told you why a big crash might be preferable (in the long term). Sometimes a bit of a reset and a big disaster will bring long term positive change as things will actually be fixed properly.

> you should learn the etiquette round here, cos that ain't it. Either treat fellow commenters and their perspectives with a modicum of respect or go back to facebook. BTW, that was a swing and a miss, I lived through that period.

You obviously didn't understand what you are talking about. It such a basic mistake. I pointed it out and then you pretended to understand how it worked. So it was obvious you looked up it up after my reply. Whether or not you lived through the period is irrelevant.

So complaining about my supposed lack of etiquette is simply a deflection. You could have just admitted you were wrong.

> Don't misunderstand when I don't reply or even read your next response. Its because I don't want to talk to you anymore, because you're not interesting.

So when you throw insults at people (calling me boring) it is okay, because you are doing it. Gotcha :D. I love double standards.

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#165

Post by ed_blackburn »

ed_blackburn wrote: post #58

I think we need to accept that age verification makes the internet safer. What we cannot accept is age verification's use as a mechanism to pry too far into peoples lives. When we can separate age verification from who am I, most people will be happier. What's tricky is who validates age? Your ISP? Your government? Your OS? A thirty party? Who accredits third-parties, and can you trust them? I'm convinced there's a w…

I think the creeping invasion of privacy argument is backwards here. What we have today isn’t privacy, it’s abdication. Platforms are externalising risk onto parents and pretending the internet is exempt from the safeguards we accept everywhere else.

Either the tech industry solves this, or governments will. That’s not ideology, it’s capitalism. If we don’t build workable, privacy-preserving primitives, regulation will arrive in the most blunt form possible.

There’s a reasonable middle ground. Identity can be a first-class citizen without being leaked to every website. I don’t need to hand over my name, address, or documents to prove I’m over 18. I need a yes/no assertion.

Imagine the browser exposing a capability like:

> “This site requires age verification. Are you over 18?”

The browser checks via a trusted third party credential and returns a boolean. No DOB. No tracking. No persistent identifier. Just a capability check, much closer to how physical ID works than today’s data-harvesting mess.

As a parent, I already police my kids as best I can, and it’s imperfect. But the offline world has friction and gates: bars check ID, cinemas enforce ratings, shops refuse sales. Those mitigations don’t make parents redundant; they support them.

Online, we’ve chosen to pretend none of that is possible. That’s not a principled privacy stance.

If we don’t design these primitives ourselves, we will get crude, insecure age databases, mandatory uploads of passports, or blanket bans instead. This is the least bad option, not a slippery slope. Collectively we have solved far harder problems.

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#166

Post by iamnothere »

chrisjj wrote: post #160
iamnothere wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same moral panic that we had over TV, video games, and Pokemon cards.

The fact this time we have a ban says you're wrong.

No, it says that the government is overreaching in a desperate attempt to regain control over public opinion. (They will fail.)

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#167

Post by squidbeak »

chrisjj wrote: post #114
squidbeak wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might like the Digital ID scheme. It uses Zero Knowledge Proofs, so that one of your 'IDs' could be a simple 'Is over 18' ZKP, without involving your name or anything other detail. These are not tracked by government or possible to associate with your wider identity. This is one of the examples listed in the framework docs. > "Unlike with a physical document, when using a digital identity, you can limit the amoun…

> if you are asked to prove you are over 18, you could provide a simple yes or no response and avoid sharing any other personal details I can't imagine how that would operate, esp. given we're told this ID will not be a digital ID card you can "show".

It's an app, and data is submitted with a tap to approve. The data is just attribute / proof pairs (eg nationality:British / true), and the bundles assembled from these pairs will differ between use cases. Nightclub proof of age would just need the 'over 18' proof, while opening a bank account would need a photo, name, address, date of birth, nationality etc. In other words, there isn't a single Digital ID. The 'ID' is just a container for a specific use. They can be reused, but they will often be single purpose or generated from the attributes saved in your wallet the moment a service requests your data. The best way to think of this is that it gives you a way to pass on your citizen data with authority, and without having to overshare.

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#168

Post by notTooFarGone »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #82
notTooFarGone wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is age verification and free speech in any case related? You can solve the problem of age verification without limiting your free speech right. Those two get entangled all the time and it does not make sense.

Non-anonymous free speech is a bit of a red herring. If you say something publicly, especially in this era of mass data, you are perpetually liable to be punished for it at some point in the future. If not by the current government, potentially another. Virtually every country in the world has experienced authoritarianism at one point or another, and there is never a guarantee that it won't again. Saying something pu…

That's my case - you can proof your age anonymously. There are edge cases where this does introduce minor issues - see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/zero-knowledge-proofs-...

but all in all this is solvable and the best we got.

It's miles better than any "upload your face or ID to some third party".

We can't let perfect be the enemy of good here and allow the worst systems to flourish now.

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#169

Post by squidbeak »

Digit-Al wrote: post #120
squidbeak wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might like the Digital ID scheme. It uses Zero Knowledge Proofs, so that one of your 'IDs' could be a simple 'Is over 18' ZKP, without involving your name or anything other detail. These are not tracked by government or possible to associate with your wider identity. This is one of the examples listed in the framework docs. > "Unlike with a physical document, when using a digital identity, you can limit the amoun…

The major problem is that no one trusts government not to abuse it and use it to track everything people do. There will be some proportion of people who trust the current government, but will be paranoid that a future government will abuse it, and there will be a proportion of people that don't trust the current government to not abuse it. You might be able to get more trust by the government assigning a third party…

> You might be able to get more trust by the government assigning a third party to audit the systems to make sure they are working as advertised, and not being abused, but you would still get people being paranoid that either the third party could be corrupted to pretend that things are okay, or that a future government would just fire them and have the system changed to track everyone anyway.

The scheme is one step ahead of you, Auditors are required [1]. Government's role in the scheme is limited to operating the API in front of its departments which are read only and scattered (eg no central database), funding the auditors and trust registry (a Digital Verification Service public key store), and legislating. The verification work will all be done by private sector digital verification services - whichever is associated with the wallet app you've chosen. There were 227 of them last year already working for various services - we all benefit from the sector being brought under a formal regulatory framework.

The tracking you fear doesn't seem to be possible beyond what is already tracked when you open a bank account etc, but this is entirely outside the scope of the wallet's operation. It's been designed specifically to make the kind of abuse you fear impossible, at least in its current format, where government is out of the loop except as a passive reference, and the DV services are legally prevented from retaining any data without your consent. Of course that could alter in future, but as it stands the framework doesn't allow for what everyone fears it does.

[1] https://enablingdigitalidentity.blog.gov.uk/2024/10/24/how-a...

(The Enabling Digital Identity Blog has a comprehensive information about every aspect of the framwework.)

Re: UK House of Lords Votes to Extend Age Verification to VPNs

#170

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

chrisjj wrote: post #107
lemoncookiechip wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can block the entire internet and whitelist specific domains. There's multiple ways of doing this, from router parental controls, specific OS tools in iOS/Android, Windows, as well as apps specific to it, and all it takes is for a parent to care enough to make a simple Google or Youtube search and learn if they don't know, and don't even know to know that they should care in the first place. The failure here is t…

> The UK unfortunately has incarcerated people for simply lifting cardboard signs saying Free Palestine. Completely false.

Well, not signs saying "Free Palestine", but instead signs saying "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8de6rq37v5o

Post reply on HN