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

171–180 of 213 posts

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

#171

Post by squidbeak »

spicyjpeg wrote: post #125
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…

While great on paper, zero-knowledge-proof based systems unfortunately have a fatal flaw. Due to the fully anonymous nature of verification tokens, implementations must have safeguards in place to prevent users from intercepting them and passing them onto someone else; in practice, this will likely be accomplished by making both the authenticator and the target service mobile apps that rely on device integrity APIs.…

I'm unsure how applicable these risks are here. The proofs appear to be bound to the app, which in turn is bound to the user's face/fingerprint (required to unlock it).

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

#172

Post by direwolf20 »

simion314 wrote: post #148
direwolf20 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Uk could force the OS to have that toggle instead of censoring the internet

>The Uk could force the OS to have that toggle instead of censoring the internet I know, and my point is if Big Tech would have added that toggle (or add it now before even more countries or USA states make more laws with different requierments ), made it easy to setup when you turn on a device for the first time to give it to your child then you could tell the politicians that the solution exists already. Now using…

The EU seems to have no problem forcing manufacturers to add certain reasonable features. I'd hope they would do it.

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

#173

Post by ryandrake »

FrostViper8 wrote: post #113
jimnotgym wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of replies stating that their MP gave them a cookie cutter response, so it is a waste of time. I can tell you that isn't entirely true. When they get a lot of messages about the same thing, or better still you meet them in person, they may keep giving you the 'party line response', but they will also be feeding back that there is discontent to the whips.

What you are telling me in effect is that all the exchanges I have are ultimately disingenuous with the MP. It also tells me that the MP represents the party and not me (as they are acting as nothing more than a glorified public relations officer). This undermines the entire point of the process and only further degrades public trust.

Here on the other side of the pond, writing our so-called Representatives to complain, produces the same kind of result. If your rep has a (D) by his or her name, you'll get back one form-letter, and if your rep has a (R) by his or her name, you'll get back the other form-letter. There's no attempt to address the points you might bring up. You write--and they respond back with their pre-baked talking points.

A politician is like ROM: Once it's written, that's it, you have to swap it out with a different ROM if you want even one of its lines of programming changed.

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

#174

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

chrisjj wrote: post #163
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... :(

:(

Man where did the free internet go.

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

#175

Post by chrisjj »

squidbeak wrote: post #167
chrisjj wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

Thanks. I don't see that info on the Govt. explainer web page. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-id-scheme...

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

#176

Post by chrisjj »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #170
chrisjj wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Completely true! :). Thanks.

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

#178

Post by krisbolton »

jimnotgym wrote: post #62
aranw wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've written to my MP several times about this. Each response just repeats the same talking points about safety whilst completely missing the underlying technical issues and consequences.

There are lots of replies stating that their MP gave them a cookie cutter response, so it is a waste of time. I can tell you that isn't entirely true. When they get a lot of messages about the same thing, or better still you meet them in person, they may keep giving you the 'party line response', but they will also be feeding back that there is discontent to the whips.

This. It's not a waste of time. I know it's frustrating. You have to set your expectations. The best you can do is write as eloquently and succinctly as possible to get your point across and make it clear what you're advocating for. Better still, encourage others to write / email / call with that same clarity.

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

#179

Post by Bender »

OpenSSH, Tinc, Wireguard and a myriad of other open source tools can also be used as a VPN. One only need a place to connect to and egress from. To me that means VPS/Server providers will also need to do age verification. Most VPS/Server providers also allow configuring reverse DNS. That leaves only CIDR blocks as a way to tell it is not residential. One could also egress from residential elsewhere assuming the friend has spare bandwidth that could be balanced and capped using sch_cake.

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

#180

Post by krisbolton »

FrostViper8 wrote: post #113
jimnotgym wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of replies stating that their MP gave them a cookie cutter response, so it is a waste of time. I can tell you that isn't entirely true. When they get a lot of messages about the same thing, or better still you meet them in person, they may keep giving you the 'party line response', but they will also be feeding back that there is discontent to the whips.

What you are telling me in effect is that all the exchanges I have are ultimately disingenuous with the MP. It also tells me that the MP represents the party and not me (as they are acting as nothing more than a glorified public relations officer). This undermines the entire point of the process and only further degrades public trust.

What you describe is the representative democratic system. Misunderstanding is the source of any distrust. It is frustrating to write to an MP only to be given boilerplate in return. But setting your expectations and continuing to advocate for your point of views is the only way to participate. One letter won't change anything, and how could it? There are other people writing opposing points of view. It's taken in the aggregate.
Post reply on HN