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

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

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 499 posts

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

#321

Post by Ferret7446 »

chihuahua wrote: post #165
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Germany just make it illegal to insult politicians?

No, that has been illegal for a long time. It's being enforced more these days, perhaps because social media makes it more tempting and easier to insult politicians in a manner where it can be easily detected. In the old days, you'd have to hand out flyers or get your letter to the editor published in a newspaper, in order to insult politicians where they could notice, and even then there was no way to automatically…

Are these adults? This level of sensitivity is what I'd expect from a toddler. We tell them to ignore it and usually/hopefully they grow up into healthy adults that don't mind insults from strangers.

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

#322

Post by socalgal2 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #121
azalemeth wrote: post #54

It's also worth stating that the worst part of that proposed amendment [1] isn't even necessarily the VPN ban, it's the next clause, on page 20: "The “CSAM requirement” is that any relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have installed tamper-proof system software which is highly effective at preventing the recording, transmitting (by any means, including livestreaming) and viewing of CSAM using that device."…

> any relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have installed tamper-proof system software It's happening. Computer freedom, everything the word "hacker" ever stood for, will be officially destroyed if this passes. We're about to be robbed of control over our computers by force of law . It's just the UK now but eventually it will be every country. This is a very dark day. I've been prophesizing its arrival for…

The answer is obvious, every engineer should leave the UK as a protest.

Yea, I know that's never going to happen. Still, I can dream

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

#323

Post by Aurornis »

nine_k wrote: post #205
avianlyric wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On a related note, they built their digital ID so that third parties could verify attributes Isn’t that the entire point of government ID of any variety? The only reason anyone ever asks to see ID is so they can use it verify attributes of your identity, such as name and age. Otherwise what’s the point of an Identity Document , if it’s not to document something? Digital ID has always been sold as something approxim…

A digital ID can be better than a passport / driver license, because it can verify only specific attributes of the bearer to a third party. E.g. only the fact that you're older than 21 in a liquor store or a car rental, but not other details readily visible in a passport.

Any ID has to reveal enough info to reasonably convince the other party that the ID belongs to that person.

These threads always bring up a hypothetical digital ID that simply says “over 21”, but it’s missing the key point that the ID needs to also give enough information to reasonably tie the identity to the user. Otherwise everyone underage would run around with borrowed or stolen IDs because there was no way to prove it did or did not belong to them.

In theory a digital passport could reveal age 21 or older with a photo and name, but it’s only marginally less info for a lot more complexity.

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

#324

Post by Defletter »

istjohn wrote: post #312
fao_ wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on those descriptions... it sounds like he was pretty clearly racist? From the article: > Sentencing Thompson, Judge Temperley had said of the zero tolerance approach being taken by courts: > “This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture. > “I don’t accept that your comme…

Yes. It's a horrible sentiment, and he should be able to air it. Free and open discourse requires me to allow you to say things I dislike in exchange for you tolerating my saying things you dislike. It isn't free speech if you're only allowed to say popular things.

The continual conflation of speech that harms society as "speech I dislike" is absurd. And yes, it's not American-style freedom of speech... we've never had that nor should we. Just look at what American-style freedom of speech has done to America.

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

#325

Post by Aurornis »

idle_zealot wrote: post #41
SpaceManNabs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting to see these kinds of comments more in this thread compared to the one from yesterday. The one from yesterday was discussing how australia is banning social media for anyone under 16. Most comments were supportive because they hate social media. A few comments were discussing how it is just a way to propagate more KYC.

It's way easier to justify banning social media entirely than banning it for under-sixteens. Paradoxically it infringes on freedom less, as it bans a type of business model for being too harmful rather than restricting people's rights to view and share information.

> It's way easier to justify banning social media entirely

Whenever I read these comments on Hacker News, on user-generated stories which are ranked in my algorithmic front page feed, written by other users posting comments and socializing, I wonder if the comments realizes that HN is also a social media website with millions of global users.

Or if they just get angry and yell “No that’s not what I meant” because they thought the government social media regulations would only target the sites they don’t like, not the sites they do.

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

#326

Post by bamboozled »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #224
agwp wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The absurd thing is that the amendment only covers smartphones and tablets - which means those who the bill aims to target can easily break the law by using a laptop, desktop, camera, smart TV etc. In short, the Pandora's Box of automated surveillance and security risk on any smartphone or tablet is opened, while a gigantic loophole for serious offenders is left open.

Computers are too powerful, too subversive for us citizens to have access to. Give citizens computers and they can copy at will, making a mockery out of things like copyright, they'd wipe out entire sectors of the economy if left unchecked. Give citizens computers and they will have cryptography which can defeat police, judges, governments, spies, militaries. They cannot tolerate it. They will eventually lock everyth…

The other side of this coin is that, disgusting horrific pedophiles, terrorists and drug smugglers also have access to this stuff too.

I'm not in support of this bill, I'm just saying whenever I read these arguments, it's almost like you're entirely discounting the challenge the very tech your praising incurs for law enforcement and society.

For me the paradox is simple, one the one hand people want everything to be "open and transparent" including their computers, but those same people often want the ability to completely hide everything in cryptography. Which one is it? If you were for openness and transparency in it's entirety, why wouldn't you by default be against cryptography ? This paradox is where the rubber hits the road on legislation like this and likely why the average Joe Smith doesn't really care about the cause. Because realistically, it all sounds suspicious. To a law abiding citizen, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

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

#328

Post by bamboozled »

int32_64 wrote: post #26

It's so organic and grass roots and good for democracy™ that every single Western country suddenly decided that eliminating privacy online in lockstep was the top priority despite none of the ruling parties running on it as a platform or with any meaningful referendums from the voting public. But to what end?

On the other hand, what's your solution for completely anonymous people to be infiltrating western democracies information space and spreading propaganda lies and falsehoods. I'm 100% not in favor of this level of authoritarianism, i'm just honestly curios what your solution is? Just let it continue? Let your children be subjected to misinformation about the holocaust etc? Let children be exploited and images of them being sexually assaulted just run wild online ? Again I'm just curious what the alternatives might?

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

#329

Post by autoexec »

phatfish wrote: post #234
autoexec wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a trash paper so skepticism is warranted but care should be taken not to dismiss facts just because of who reports them. Thankfully, we don't have to depend on the word of the Daily Mail for evidence that the UK doesn't value the ideal of free speech and are far too comfortable punishing and silencing online speech. It's a problem, and it makes their efforts to tie people's online activity to an individual w…

[flagged]

> Apart from Israel/Palestine what speech is being silenced?

You say that as if people posting about Israel/Palestine isn't political speech that matters. Free speech matters and you shouldn't have police coming after you for it even you're just a teenager posting lyrics to facebook (Chelsea Russell) drawing a penis on a photo of a cop (Jordan Barrack), sharing a vacation photo of yourself holding a gun (Jon Richelieu-Booth), repeating gossip surrounding recent events (Bonnie Spofforth), talking shit about your boss (Robert Moss), or saying that a politician should resign (Helen Jones).

While that kind of speech can be silly, thoughtless, rude, or annoying it's also normal everyday speech that happens everywhere. Just because technology allows police monitor our speech more closely than they could before that's no reason for using that to go after people for the kinds of expression that have been a normal part of life for ages.

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

#330

Post by bamboozled »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #308
owisd wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to be a device for American free speech advocates to feel like they’re contributing something while being distracted from Trump chilling free speech by shaking down CBS & ABC, defunding Harvard, bogus investigations into James Comey, Tish James & others, Texas school book bannings, AAUP vs Rubio, etc, etc.

I mean all of those are downright minor compared to what's happening in the UK. Seriously it's creepy how many people try to gaslight Americans that what we are seeing isn't one of the largest trampling on the rights of free speech in the west.

You are a boiling frog, "oh it's minor, it's minor, it's just jokes, it's just a little bit"...
Post reply on HN