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

EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

cyberinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 467 posts

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#181

Post by Jtarii »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #126
Jtarii wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Off the top of my head, Trump's corporate tax cuts in 2017 might be one of the most clearcut examples of something that benefitted corporations over individuals, was lobbied for by corporations, and was high profile enough to have public polling while being so blatantly unjustifiable that said polling demonstrated the public was clearly against it. The 2017 tax cut law was extremely popular among republican voters,…

I suppose that was a bad example because Republican voters don't have a single policy they stand by, only party loyalty. eg. Republican voters were staunchly opposed to war in Iran until Trump did it and then support skyrocketed.

I agree that the US is in a strange place currently. The cult of personality Trump has hopefully goes away with him.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#182

Post by refurb »

ghssds wrote: post #155
rvnx wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because it's not about the opinion of voters, but about existing political powers that want to retain their power. No matter what you (as population) say it will get implemented. If you don't, then they will put sanctions on Poland, withdraw financial partnerships, etc. Like with migrants, they are going to be sent there, even if Polish people vote against. No matter if you are in favor or against, raising the t…

[flagged]

I didn’t see race mentioned in the comment?

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#183

Post by rvnx »

ghssds wrote: post #155
rvnx wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because it's not about the opinion of voters, but about existing political powers that want to retain their power. No matter what you (as population) say it will get implemented. If you don't, then they will put sanctions on Poland, withdraw financial partnerships, etc. Like with migrants, they are going to be sent there, even if Polish people vote against. No matter if you are in favor or against, raising the t…

[flagged]

I just don’t like criminals, no matter where they come from, it’s quite ok but yes selecting immigration is a socially slippery topic

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#184

Post by delusional »

pembrook wrote: post #143
delusional wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is arguably much worse than allowing children to watch porn online, because this will for sure effect people's whole life in a negative way. I would like you to make that argument.

What argument? You're the one that needs to argue the presence of harm, given you're the one arguing we need to create a surveillance dragnet to shield certain age groups of humans from witnessing how their species procreates. The default state is that humans procreate via sexual reproduction. You need to argue why we need to take action to hide this, especially given we let children witness other far more brutal act…

The argument I am asking him to make is the one about how age verification is "much worse" than "allowing children to watch porn".

If your argument in favor of that is that watching porn isn't harmful to children, then I don't understand what all that superfluous waffling about china is doing in there.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#185

Post by megous »

Some EP commitee writes a report about some UK (not-EU) person stating "VPNs are a loophole that needs closing".

  > A loophole that needs closing
  [Some argue] that this is a loophole in the legislation that needs closing and call for age verification to be required for VPNs as well.
[Some argue] being a link to some UK website

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_AT...

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#186

Post by applfanboysbgon »

tgv wrote: post #166
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you actually know people that will just give you their phone so you can watch porn? They don't ask for it, they take it when you're busy or sleeping. Teens certainly weren't asking for Dad's VHS tapes or magazines when I was a kid. I suppose this problem is solveable, too, though. Mandatory biometric locks on every device capable of accessing the internet, why not? > That's not the right quote for this case. It…

> they take it when you're busy or sleeping That will be quite noticeable. And tricky if it's face or fingerprint locked, something I see in all phones around me are. Daddy likes his privacy too. For the rest: rant on, but it'll only reduce your audience. One thing we can learn from history: calling people fascists doesn't work.

One thing we can learn from history: tolerating fascists really, really doesn't work.

If it's not clear, the point of calling fascism what it is, is not to convince the people who are being called fascists of anything. They cannot be convinced of anything, because they are fascists. The point is to highlight, to people who are already amenable but complacent, that a greater sense of urgency is needed. Our societies are currently sleepwalking into a dystopia that will make the Gestapo and KGB look like child's play. There will be no revolution, no liberation, no resistance if our governments are allowed the degree of control they're seeking. Once complete surveillance is established, communications are controlled, and freedom ceases to exist, it will be lost permanently this time.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#187

Post by _njyk »

refurb wrote: post #182
ghssds wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I didn’t see race mentioned in the comment?

I just made it softer (though I never mentioned race but economic migration), still can be too sensitive so let it be, just my opinion (I am in Eastern Europe and there the views are rather harsh, compared to Germany or France or Sweden)

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#188

Post by ckjellqv »

pembrook wrote: post #143
delusional wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is arguably much worse than allowing children to watch porn online, because this will for sure effect people's whole life in a negative way. I would like you to make that argument.

What argument? You're the one that needs to argue the presence of harm, given you're the one arguing we need to create a surveillance dragnet to shield certain age groups of humans from witnessing how their species procreates. The default state is that humans procreate via sexual reproduction. You need to argue why we need to take action to hide this, especially given we let children witness other far more brutal act…

> This is arguably much worse

Surely someone claiming it's arguable should be willing to make that argument.

For me it's not that it's reproduction. Film that shows sex is not an issue as I see it and I don't know anyone that has developed serious addictions to sex in Hollywood film. However I know several people, family members included, that have absolutely obliterated their childhoods and early adult years by becoming addicted to porn. They were groomed by adults online from a young age and, although their parents tried to stop it, kids are sneakier and they got around it, exposing themselves to some truly dark things. It is not easy for families to recover from having dealt with a child with serious addiction issues.

I think it's pretty silly to argue that systemic protections are ineffective and overreach whereas the efforts of one or two parents should be enough and are the correct level of enforcement for the protection of children. The parents of the people I know went to extremes to protect their children and they were mostly unsuccessful.

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#189

Post by dinfinity »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #39
qnpnpmqppnp wrote: post #19

This title seems misleading. The EP paper appears to be highlighting the existence of a debate regarding VPN. Relevant quote: "Some argue that this is a loophole in the legislation that needs closing and call for age verification to be required for VPNs as well. In response, some VPN providers argue that they do not share information with third parties and state that their services are not intended for use by childre…

This needs a new "law of headlines": whenever it's the EU saying something, it's never the EU that said that.

Even the, it's incredibly vague at best, equivalent to "The USA said that", which only makes sense in a context where the relevant spokespeople are well-defined (such as a UN assembly or something), but who is the general spokesperson for the USA or the EU?

Usually things like these are qualified like "the Department of Defense of the USA stated X".

Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"

#190

Post by delusional »

christophilus wrote: post #163
delusional wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is arguably much worse than allowing children to watch porn online, because this will for sure effect people's whole life in a negative way. I would like you to make that argument.

Parents can protect their children. Source: I’m a parent. My kids haven’t seen porn and can’t access the internet. This doesn’t affect the free exchange of ideas that my fellow countrymen enjoy. Governments getting involved absolutely, unequivocally will be used to clamp down on the free exchange of ideas.

That wasn't the point i was asking for an argument for. What I wanted to know is how age verification is worse then allowing children to watch porn. To make that argument.

> Source: I’m a parent. My kids haven’t seen porn and can’t access the internet.

Are they above the age of 16? Because then you're either Amish or out of touch.

Post reply on HN