Live data from Hacker News

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

alecmuffett.com

241–250 of 499 posts

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

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But would you agree going into people's houses and arresting them for mean tweets would be infringing on their civil liberties just a little bit?

Mean tweets - yes. Very obvious incitement to violence - no.

So you would categorize these as "incitements to violence"?

The recent arrest at London’s Heathrow airport of a noted Irish comedian, Graham Linehan, for the “crime” of three politically incorrect tweets

A few months ago, police arrested a couple for messages shared in a WhatsApp chat group as six officers searched their home.

Authorities arrested a grandmother for silently holding a sign outside an abortion clinic that said “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, if you want.”

The wife of a conservative politician was sentenced to 31 months in prison for what police said was an unacceptable post. In contrast, a child molester was sentenced to 21 months in the slammer.

And yet, something worse is happening that is being swept under the rug:

A glaring example of this “wokeness” was exposed earlier this year by Elon Musk when he put the spotlight on how British authorities have for years turned a blind eye to notorious rape gangs made up primarily of Pakistani Muslim men who prey on vulnerable young girls. Musk was pilloried by the woke crowd for making this an issue. If not for his prominence, he most certainly would have been prosecuted. Thanks to Musk’s pressure, however, the British prime minister finally reversed course and ordered a probe. An extensive investigation has already found the scandal to be uglier and more widespread than previously supposed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...

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

#242

EU countries seem to be obsessed with infringing upon their citizens privacy

The UK left because the EU was not "thinking of the children"

No they left because the old people didn't like all the brown faces in their street.

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

#243
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's crazy that there is a house of unelected lords in an allegedly modern country. I certainly agree. But its worth noting that only 92 of the 825 seats in the Lords are reserved for hereditary peers - the remainder are nominated by the (elected) leaders of the main political parties, or are appointed for non-political achievements (science, society, business, arts, etc.) There are also 26 Church of England bishop…

> less party-political Making it life appointments only makes things much worse. It is not possible to be depoliticized in a polarized environment; look at what happened to the US supreme Court, or the Polish one.

For what it’s worth the SC happened in the US because there is too much agreement between parties. The republicans are the bad cop to the democrats more presentable bad cop. They feel they are losing control of things so capitalism is taking a turn towards increased repression. There wasn’t opposition to the packing of the court, both parties have the same masters.

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

#244
post #109
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks. That wasn't clear from the Mail article above. But the Times article also says: > A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include “any form of communication” such as phone calls, letters, emails and hoax calls to emergency services. So I think the categorisation is a mess, and probably not even consistent across forces

I have to say, it is a bit astonishing how much you are in a kind of bargaining stage of trying to rationalize how what is happening, is not actually happening, all while the trap doors are closing all around you even though very slowly.

Why do you think that is?

It is not just a British thing, because this ruling class tyranny is descending all across the western world, regardless of whether it is particularly egregious in the UK. Or should we maybe just start calling it Airstrip One at this point, the AO?

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, which grass roots group exactly campaigned for this? Which party’s manifesto was it on?

In Britain in particular? The NSPCC, Molly Rose Foundation, IWF among a bunch of others. 70% of Brits are supportive of the online safety act[1], it's been supported by Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. There's simply no data in favor of the argument that this is a minority position or even some kind of conspiracy. Child safety is (not very surprisingly) usually a voter driven concern. You think banning people from…

Of course a poll that asks a leading question can get 70% in favour. It’s not a conspiracy by TLAs (the people they’re interested in won’t be fazed by these paper-thin measures) or big tech (this hurts their bottom line). It’s legacy media, who have lost a lot of ground to the Internet, and stand to lose nothing by making it worse, and coincidentally also have a captive audience of voters who wouldn’t know one end of a USB cable from another who simply don’t understand any of the downsides.

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

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. The success of even one such prosecution means that the second someone in government wants someone out of the way, they can efficiently be imprisoned for anything rising to the level of... "offensive."

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

#248
post #176

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.

That's the organisation. The knock on effects are quite considerable. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/nov/27/sally-rooney-p... Also the whole thing moved incredibly quickly; it went from new organization to banned almost immediately. I'm fairly sure that other groups previously like the Greenham Common camp didn't get this treatment. It was reasonable to arrest people who actually broke into the base and those…

> It was reasonable to arrest people who actually broke into the base and those who organized it. Going after those speaking in support is what's excessive

Speaking out, yes. Helping organize? No.

Where the UK took it over the top was in using terrorist statute to shut down the organisation. That was unnecessary. But if the organisation helped organise the action—and this is not yet proven—its assets should have been frozen while the organisation and its leaders are investigated. If the organisation were found to have knowingly aided and abetted the break-in, it should have been shut down.

All of this could have been done using mostly civil and a little criminal law. None of it required terrorism laws.

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

#249
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While figures show that the total number of arrests for online posts fell to 9,700 last year, down from a record 13,800 in 2023... https://freespeechunion.org/daily-mail-investigation-exposes...

[flagged]

see [0] the original Palestine Action protestors, who were arrested in 2024 and are not likely to see trial until at the best May 2026, and some sources are saying January 2027.

They are being kept in remand, with no possibility of release, for at least two years, without being convicted of a crime.

This is legal because Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation and the UK passed some farcical laws aimed at preventing terrorism, that everyone pointed out at the time would be used against non-terrorists eventually. They are using this same law to arrest hundreds of people for doing nothing more than holding a placard.

In the UK, if the government can make a case that you are a terrorist, then arrest is absolutely the same as imprisons. And similar farcical laws are operating in most Western democracies.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxq3g9g4eyo

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

#250
i've long held a view that what CCP is doing is cancer to all citizens in previously free countries, our democratic leaders are quick to show disgust and disdain, but the actual owners of the country, actual powers that be are enamored and mesmerised by what they're doing to the Chinese populace especially when it comes to messaging/propaganda. block and track everyone then just tiktok your way high heavens. it's not even what aldous huxley meant by the pleasure essay anymore it's deeper and more manipulative
Post reply on HN