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

Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

therectangle.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 119 posts

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#31

Post by XorNot »

FerretFred wrote: post #18

For me personally, I agree that wanting non-adults to be able get at online porn is commendable, and the fact that the tech industry is scrambling over itself to comply is evidence that this Act has teeth. However, what bugs me personally is that 1) The Government had nearly 2 years head start to set up a centralised ID repository, hopefully basing it on the same model as the DVLA and Passport Office sharing photo an…

There is no possible way to achieve this goal without 4 happening though: or moreover, without it being possible.

Your prior 3 ideas all end up at "potential government surveillance of the people".

There is no way to implement verification like this without surveiling everyone, even if you don't plan to use the data - the possibility will always be there.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#32

Post by XorNot »

_joel wrote: post #7

Seems as though, if anything, the government are doubling down on it. I swear Labour are speedrunning "How to become the most hated party". I thought it'd take a bit longer than a year, but here we are.

They're not though. These types of policies are very popular. HN users come out in favor of them or some variant and you'd think they should recognize the dangers.

People will happily demand these policies in the abstract, and then some will be unhappy with the implementation but not all.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#33

Post by VikingMiner »

> In reality, this wouldn’t happen, because, generally, people understand that stabbings are a cultural issue, rather than a technical one

Many UK MPs don't understand this. I've heard of MPs making (moronic) suggestions such as selling kitchen knives without the point on it. I've literally seen this advertised as a solution on the news.

For whatever reason they don't seem to understand that literally anyone can make a shiv.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#34

Post by qzx_pierri »

snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #28
FerretFred wrote: post #18

For me personally, I agree that wanting non-adults to be able get at online porn is commendable, and the fact that the tech industry is scrambling over itself to comply is evidence that this Act has teeth. However, what bugs me personally is that 1) The Government had nearly 2 years head start to set up a centralised ID repository, hopefully basing it on the same model as the DVLA and Passport Office sharing photo an…

Everyone who is currently an adult and not geriatric could have had access to porn when they were a child. Is everyone fucked up? No? Why are you advocating for eliminating privacy for a made up problem?

This is my main frustration. Every teenager who wants to get porn will get porn regardless. VPN companies saw the writing on the wall years ago, and have been paying any YouTuber that will accept a sponsorship to shill for them.

I think the Online Safety Act is just setting a precedent that will be used further down the line to ban personal VPN usage.

"Children are using encrypted VPN tunnels to see porn online! Criminals also use those same VPN networks!"

Let me guess... There will be a law requiring ISPs to block VPN traffic if the VPN server's hostname isn't registered to a business and approved by the government.

UK: "Do you have a license for that VPN?!"

Anyway, download i2p, or Hyphanet/freenet

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#35

Post by [deleted] »

Zak wrote: post #30

> a statement like “we should stop young kids watching porn” is so agreeable that only the nuttiest amongst us could even begin to disagree with it I mostly disagree with it. I don't want prepubescent children watching porn of course, but the vast majority of them aren't doing that with any regularity, nor do they have any desire to. It isn't a problem that demands a robust solution with serious downsides. I do think…

[deleted]

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#36

Post by bsenftner »

TheBigSalad wrote: post #14

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I really hate this statement: Until we start thinking about the true test of any policy: implementation and enforcement. The true test of policy should be the desired outcome behind that policy.

Let's include who is pushing for the new policy right up to the head of considerations, because these "child protections" are not child protections, they are using children as fear vehicles to make political careers and to generate new revenues for their tech security company backers. Calls to "protect the children" rarely are about children at all, but are almost universally a vehicle to usher in some Orwellian fear-laced perspective forced on the public.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#37

Post by FerretFred »

snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #28
FerretFred wrote: post #18

For me personally, I agree that wanting non-adults to be able get at online porn is commendable, and the fact that the tech industry is scrambling over itself to comply is evidence that this Act has teeth. However, what bugs me personally is that 1) The Government had nearly 2 years head start to set up a centralised ID repository, hopefully basing it on the same model as the DVLA and Passport Office sharing photo an…

Everyone who is currently an adult and not geriatric could have had access to porn when they were a child. Is everyone fucked up? No? Why are you advocating for eliminating privacy for a made up problem?

I'm not! I know how easy it is to "discover" porn, but if sites adopted the RTA labelling system (https://rtalabel.net/?content=howto) and browsers obeyed that would go a long way to preventing those "accidental" discoveries. What my privacy concerns are were as per my post - no accountability from various global third parties and indiscriminate use of my PII.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#38

Post by fidotron »

VikingMiner wrote: post #33

> In reality, this wouldn’t happen, because, generally, people understand that stabbings are a cultural issue, rather than a technical one Many UK MPs don't understand this. I've heard of MPs making (moronic) suggestions such as selling kitchen knives without the point on it. I've literally seen this advertised as a solution on the news. For whatever reason they don't seem to understand that literally anyone can make…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmorris/2019/03/14/yes-a-poli...

For anyone doubting the veracity of that.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#39

Post by FerretFred »

XorNot wrote: post #31
FerretFred wrote: post #18

For me personally, I agree that wanting non-adults to be able get at online porn is commendable, and the fact that the tech industry is scrambling over itself to comply is evidence that this Act has teeth. However, what bugs me personally is that 1) The Government had nearly 2 years head start to set up a centralised ID repository, hopefully basing it on the same model as the DVLA and Passport Office sharing photo an…

There is no possible way to achieve this goal without 4 happening though: or moreover, without it being possible. Your prior 3 ideas all end up at "potential government surveillance of the people". There is no way to implement verification like this without surveiling everyone, even if you don't plan to use the data - the possibility will always be there.

Yes, and this is one reason why we (Brits) have resisted Government ID cards for so long.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#40

Post by john01dav »

Zak wrote: post #30

> a statement like “we should stop young kids watching porn” is so agreeable that only the nuttiest amongst us could even begin to disagree with it I mostly disagree with it. I don't want prepubescent children watching porn of course, but the vast majority of them aren't doing that with any regularity, nor do they have any desire to. It isn't a problem that demands a robust solution with serious downsides. I do think…

I'd prefer the HTTP header be on the response. That way, it can't be used for fingerprinting and can easily put the website in a more fine grained category (e.g., porn, gore, political extremism) and the user agent can be configured to filter based on this. You could then create limited but present liability for mislabeling.
Post reply on HN