Live data from Hacker News

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

cyberinsider.com

301–310 of 467 posts

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

#301
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well why did you say to them it doesnt have downsides? It has downsides and a very essential one like privacy.

> Well why did you say to them it doesnt have downsides? It has downsides and a very essential one like privacy. It is possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. So... you're wrong here.

No one is doing it that way though. Also to be truly privacy-preserving you cannot rely on anything that requires any specific OS (especially Android or iOS) as every single OS requires some compromises to privacy.

The only privacy-preserving (effective) age verification is asking user if they are over 18 and requiring that they answer truthfully under penalty of perjury. Then prosecute the kids who claim they are over 18. For reason or another no one seems to be pushing for that option.

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

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a tech perspective it has been a solved problem since about a decade ago, via DID (decentralised identities) and their Verifiable Proofs. The EU digital wallet framework is built around those, and your suggested scenario is a first class citizen. It is now moving from the academic/research world, to the political field, and feedback/pressure from both commercial groups and political agendas is muddling the field…

It's a "solved problem" that didn't ever need solving in the first place.

Preserving privacy within a rule based democracy is important to me.

This is the foundational tool for 450 million EU citizens, so I think is very important.

We likely have different interests.

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

#303

If any EU government people are reading this, I'd like to send you a short message: Please stop thinking about the kids on the internet. But here's a brief list of things you must work on with higher urgency: - taxing more large corporations, - taxing more ultra-rich people, - funding EU-made (open source) tech and infrastructure, - let parents spend more time with their kids so they can actually protect their offspr…

Lol, a list of other bogeymen

“Don’t look at this scary monster, look at my pet issue scary monster instead!”

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

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title is also the exact title for that paper’s chapter. You are right at pointing out that the paper is overall presenting the subject in a balanced manner, unfortunately it seems a bad choice was made when it came to that specific sentence, that gives a venue for it to be fed in the outrage machine. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2026/7826...

In that specific sentence the source is cited (via hyperlink). So even if you read it out of all context you can still find out the source is UK's Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza who said it, not "the EU" (whatever that means). For this "story" to gain legs, someone must have pulled that sentence out of content without mentioning the source and then added some misleading context for the outrage.

It has been chosen as a chapter title.

In my view, it lends more authority to that statement over the other citations in that chapter.

I am inclined to take this as a honest editorial mistake: adding a ? at the end would have been the right choice.

I might be a bit lost on what you/we mean by context. For me, it’s the original pdf from the EU, no quotes.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2026/7826...

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

#306
post #109

In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too. This simple policy then goes on to silence most individual publisher(/self-media) and consolidated the industry into the hands of the few, with no opportunity left for smaller entrepreneurs. This is arguably much worse than allowing children to wat…

[flagged]

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

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU enshrined privacy in its charter of fundamental rights. GDPR was and still is a major protection. US, from its biggest companies to the whole of Silicon Valley culture has done the exact opposite. Within the EU, multiple attempts at pushing changes in opposition to this have been proposed, debated, voted on (and rejected), as democracies do. Not perfect, but when you come down to laws, EU bureaucrats gave EU citiz…

> Within the EU, multiple attempts at pushing changes in opposition to this have been proposed, debated, voted on (and rejected), as democracies do. If 51% of people want to do something wrong, they should do it to themselves and leave the other 49% alone. Democracy is not an excuse for doing the wrong thing and going "oh well, guess people want it".

Thank you for clearly stating that democracy is not a value for you, instead of dancing around the concept with semantics.

I completely disagree with you, but at least we clearly know why.

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

#308
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only in China. Russian internet cenzorship also started as a "children protection" measure.

Ursula von den Leyen has been pushing internet blocks in Germany for the sake of the children since 2009. Which is when "Zensursula" nickname has been coined. You don't need to look far to find the same thinking by the people in power.

they know mass populace is stupid and won't look behind the title. Are you against the law "protecting children"? Shame on you

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

#309
post #109

In case people no longer remember, when China started to require websites to register for a license before be allowed to operate, it was for "protecting the children" too. This simple policy then goes on to silence most individual publisher(/self-media) and consolidated the industry into the hands of the few, with no opportunity left for smaller entrepreneurs. This is arguably much worse than allowing children to wat…

You shouldn't have to be an "entrepreneur" to have a website. The idea that the only useful/interesting things to say are those that are profitable is a big part of the problem we find ourselves in.

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

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care for a limited and selective best-possible interpretation of a subset of measures viewed in isolation. The point is that a broader set of vectors are being used continuously to gradually ensnare and limit digital freedom. This is not a misleading headline, this is a document from the European Parliamentary Research Service that calls out VPNs as a technology that may need to be moderated in order to enfor…

Ok, my answer was sloppy. Here’s what I meant: 1. Context is “EU digital identity”. For a decade EU asked researcher how to have a way to verify age only, without extra data leaking. They have a working solution, and it’s the one rolling out to EU citizens. 2. This document talks about VPNs because they have been bought up recently as “how to skip age verification tools”. It is a legitimate concern. Every EU citizen…

That is the exact point. A "best intentions" approach to e.g. solve age verification through a "privacy respecting" mechanism leads to the government mandating that only physical devices with the built in security verification mechanisms, as allowed via government approved signatures, would be able to run these age verification apps (because otherwise you could cheat the mechanisms). This is a direct attack on general purpose computing and facilitates digital fascism by requiring that all software is signed in a manner approved by the government (directly or indirectly).

This is not hyperbole - Android will be locked down in only 115 days [0]. Further, in order to enforce such an age verification mechanism, you will end up requiring all software to either account for why it would not need to be integrated, or integrate with such a government mandated mechanism. This introduces accounting, surveillance, and approvals for every possible use-case. How would an online forum dedicated to discussing political topics survive? They would have to prove that they are complying with such measures that increase the barrier to operate and ensures that any forum or other arena of interaction would have to be accountable and justify how they are verifying interactions within the bounds of these laws and mechanisms.

Further - beyond locking down devices you would clearly need to lock down networks and communication in order to enforce such restrictions - which leads to deeper and broader filtering / scanning / monitoring - and preventing workarounds such as VPNs to ensure that all thoughts and actions are within these government set bounds.

Further - it is essential to realize that the outcome of this is not the best case of a single measure - the outcome in many cases will be the combination of measures taken by many different governments across the globe that each cut away certain freedoms.

Again - this is not only about age verification or digital wallets - it is the continuous pattern shown clearly through a range of actions made over time by the EU to introduce client-side scanning, age verification mechanisms, locking down devices. It's not all in place yet, but it is certainly being aggressively worked towards. All of these mechanisms will directly facilitate digital fascism as it will literally become illegal to effectively read, think, communicate without it being inside the remaining allowed bubble set by the government.

Another post on the front page of HN just now is about France seeking to dismantle end-to-end encryption. It is then not about the best possible view of a single measure in isolation, it is that these measures will lock in digital fascism broadly unless you are able to see what they facilitate when combined.

[0] https://keepandroidopen.org/en/

[1] https://reclaimthenet.org/france-moves-to-break-encrypted-me...

Post reply on HN