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

411–420 of 499 posts

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

#411

Post by EmptyCoffeeCup »

u_sama wrote: post #380
stebalien wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> democracy house of lords

The house of lords is a stamping system at this point, and maybe a stopgap to authoritarianism. All power resides in the House of Commons which is elected The true issue lies in the fact that the Westminster style of government is de facto an elective tyranny, with no real checks and balances other than the misused ECHR

If this were true, the papers wouldn't have run an article yesterday bitching about the lords sending back the workers rights bill again.

The commons may _eventually_ overrule them, but it takes time and costs political capital.

The majority of our population want more law, more rules, more restrictions : they don't see the value or enjoyment in doing something, so they don't think anyone should be able to do it.

Ask the average joe whether or not cars should prevent drivers from being able to "chose" to break the speed limit: You'll get a resounding "yes" 8/10 times - the value of freewill seems to be increasing lost on my country men.

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

#412

Post by cyanydeez »

stickfigure wrote: post #72
cyanydeez wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's not reassuring in the slightest.

Is it reassuring that some of the speech is a call to kill other people both online and in the strwets?

Do you even descern any difference?

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

#413

Post by avianlyric »

subscribed wrote: post #290
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…

It's not a "citizen SSO", even non-residents use it when paying taxes, for self-assessment purposes. It's Government services SSO. And no, Digital ID wasn't sold as something like this, it has been sold as a way to prevent (?) "illegals" from working, by introducing system entirely similar to the current eVisa. Unless you slept through all these televised discussions where Keir Starmer with a stern face explained how…

You’re making the assumption that inherently support the creation of Digital ID. I’ve not expressed support for it, I’m just highlighting that if someone is going to criticise it, they should at least understand it well enough to make useful, accurate, criticism.

Criticising ID for making it possible for 3rd parties to verify attributes is a ridiculous thing to do, because that’s the entire point of ID.

If someone wants to criticise the exact mechanism used to allow 3rd parties to verify attributes of someone’s ID, then they should be clear about what that mechanism is, and why it’s problematic. Otherwise it’s impossible to have a sensible discussion, and discuss the various pros and cons of different implementations.

At the end of the day it’s beyond clear we’re moving towards a world where governments and people expect the internet to work closer to how the real world works, with equivalent limitation such as age gating. Putting forward inaccurate, and hyperbolic arguments about arbitrary, indistinct risks associated forms of Digital ID ultimately does us all a huge disservice, because it creates the opportunity to dismiss all criticism as little more than hysterical whining by people uninterested in learning about the societal problems Digital ID is meant to deal with. Which ultimately means we’re removed from the entire discussion about alternative approaches to Digital ID, or implementations of Digital ID that are privacy preserving.

If we’re not involved in those discussions, and seen as creditable contributors to solving the underlying problem, then those pushing for more authoritarian approaches win the argument by default.

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

#414

Post by Gud »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #404
Gud wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did the UK use to be free? Seems to me this is a cultural issue that runs deep. You are his majesty’s loyal subject, like it or not, and more importantly, you are a subject of his bureaucracy. The US works in a similar fashion, except the deep state has slightly different excuses to exist. I work extensively in the UK(past 5 years, I’ve worked there maybe two years in total). Nothing gets done without endless ap…

I'm not british. "We" refers to computer users worldwide. The UK is just the beginning, this will spread to other countries. My country loves to copy whatever Europe is doing.

Europe is not a homogenous thing. There are wast cultural differences (although the Americanisation has been in full swing for a long time).

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

#415

Post by stephen_g »

maest wrote: post #313
stephen_g wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You joke, but as I understand it, all internet in the UK has Government mandated 'adult content' filtering by default and you have to go through a process to prove you're over 18 to have it removed... So they are much more than halfway there already...

You understand it incorrectly

“ In July 2013, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) agreed to voluntarily offer “default-on” adult content internet filters on all new and existing home network customers” [1]

OK, so the entire industry does opt everyone in to content filtering by default, just every single provider, without exception, does it “voluntarily”.

1. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07...

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

#416

Post by avianlyric »

Aurornis wrote: post #323
nine_k wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

There are solutions to this. Look at how state ID on iOS is handled.

There’s an enrolment process where your identity is bound to your phone, and secured using biometrics.

When you need to prove age, the device can produce a signed token attesting to fact that your older than 21 etc. and your device is trusted to validate your identity using a biometric scan performed by your phone.

All of this is dependent on everyone trusting your phone to both validate your physical identity before signing something, and also not sharing anything it shouldn’t. But given you can already enroll US state ID on iOS, those problems are clearly solvable.

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

#417

Post by kubb »

tormeh wrote: post #214
autoexec wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "That sounds crazy" - Yeah, it kinda is. In practice this is rarely enforced Generally, selective enforcement is itself a huge problem. That might not actually be an issue in this instance though if the only thing preventing enforcement is the lack of a formal complaint and assuming that the complaint process is easily accessible to everyone (not requiring money to file, and without other barriers that might preven…

Well, time is money, right? If someone files a complaint and goes through with whatever proceedings ensue you can bet that it's not a single mom working a full-time job. For police officers, on the other hand, enforcing this law on behalf of themselves is part of their job. So in practice this law is grossly unfair. It does lead to a greater level of decorum in public debate than in most other countries, which is nic…

I think you're holding the German law to a much higher standard than many hold their legal systems.

On the other side of the pond cases are routinely decided by who can afford the right lawyer or litigation costs.

So yeah, it's very admirable that you want German law to be perfect, but you've gotta admit how it currently ranks up against real-world points of reference other than the ideal.

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

#418

Post by u_sama »

Defletter wrote: post #408
u_sama wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me how did the recent wave of Gen-Z protests start, hw did the Arab spring start? Tweets (and other censored social media) for better or for worse have been at the center of impactful political movements and protests

Again, you are stripping all context and content. You are pretending that protest organising and calling for the burning down of a building populated with asylum seekers are the same thing. I vehemently reject this facetious framing.

You're conflating legitimate criticism with incitement. The police record suggest the opposite.

Take the example *Bernadette Spofforth, 55*, she shared false information that the attacker was an asylum seeker, adding "If this is true, all hell will break loose." (not false btw) Deleted it, apologized. She still got arrested, held 36 hours, and then *released without charge because of insufficient evidence*.

No call for violence, "misinformation", which she retracted when corrected. Yet she still was arrested during the crackdown. The state used riot prosecutions to sweep up misinformation, political speech and "hatred" on one swoop not just incitement. Spofforth's arrest (and quiet release) shows they criminalized *any speech near the riots*, then kinda sorted legality later.

You're using the retarded Lucy Connolly to justify arresting people like Spofforth (which has opinion closer to the average). That's the poisoning-the-well: conflate extremists with moderates sharing concerns, arrest both, then claim all arrested speech was violent incitement.

You also seem to not take into account that *the UK has built the legal apparatus to enable this overreach:*

- *Public Order Act 1986*: Criminalizes speech where "hatred" is "likely" to be stirred up. You're criminal based on how others react.

- *Online Safety Act 2023*: Forces platforms to remove "harmful" content or face £18 million fines.

- *Non-Crime Hate Incidents*: Since 2014, police record speech "perceived" as hateful, even when no crime occurred. 133,000+ recorded. No evidence, no appeals, appears on background checks. Court ruled this unlawful for "chilling effect" in 2021 yet police continue anyway.

In total it ends up with 12,000+ annual arrests for speech (30/day), fourfold increase since 2016. 666,000 police hours on non-crimes. Broad laws + complaint-driven policing = arrest first, determine legality never.

Free speech protects conditional statements about policy during crises or when the people has something to say to its elites. The 36-hour detention without charges proves the suppression.

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

#419

Post by freefaler »

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."…

14 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI

The modern societies run via those devices and the enforcement will move to the mostly free Internet that was "a long time ago, when it didn't matter as much".

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

#420

Post by Forgeties79 »

piker wrote: post #177
Forgeties79 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I am reading these wrong, but it doesn’t appear to me these sources indicate that a significant number of people are being arrested for “speech offenses,” which I’m guessing you are using as shorthand for statements akin to those that would fall under “free speech” in the US. If I’m not seeing it or I am not correctly defining what you mean, feel free to correct me. I’m having to make some assumptions here

It can be hard to wrap your head around it from the US, but many of these are people that are in fact being arrested for writing posts on social media, e.g., https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-6... (arrested for post wearing a Manchester Arena bomber costume) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-60930670 (arrested for posting "the only good British soldier is a dead British sold…

> It can be hard to wrap your head around it from the US,

Come on. Was that necessary? I understand what we are talking about, I am saying none of those articles indicate that there is some huge thing going on where people in the UK are being arrested by the tens of thousands for irreverent memes or whatever. The issue is not my understanding, it’s the handwaving and vague generalizations that are causing issues. It’s coming across as fear mongering and I am looking for clarity.

Post reply on HN