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

431–440 of 499 posts

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

#431

Post by niggertopia »

chihuahua wrote: post #213
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brit here. The HoL's role is to review and scrutinise legislation as part of the parliamentary process of turning bills into acts (laws). Most legislation originates in the (directly elected) House of Commons. But all parliamentary bills pass through the Lords, and they can propose ammendments, but those ammendments have to be approved by the Commons. Those that aren't are sent back to the Lords for reconsideration.…

Good Lord, Jeeves! Do you mean to tell me that a gaggle of elected coves can simply override the peers in the Upper House? It seems a distinct inversion of the natural order, what? Rather like the oyster overruling the walrus! It makes one feel the foundations of the Empire are trembling a bit, like a jelly in a high wind.

[dead]

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

#434

Post by d0100 »

HWR_14 wrote: post #357
admash wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is to refuse to delegate the formation and development of the character of our children and culture to automated systems and regulatory policies. Engage with your children on topics that matter. Discuss the pros and cons of various viewpoints and political platforms with your friends and neighbors, colleagues and fellow bus-riders. We, ourselves, are the psychosocial immune system for society, and if…

> Engage with your children on topics that matter. And what do we do for the children who have parents who fail them. How do we even detect it in time to help those children?

The answer is always money, just ask all the small, rich European countries that have no need for draconian measures against their citizens

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

#436

Post by immibis »

drnick1 wrote: post #144
richwater wrote: post #2

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

Very true, just see what happened to the Graphene project recently. They were approached by the French government for a backdoor, threatened when they refused, and left the country in fear.

That is not what happened to the Graphene project recently.

Basically, there have been a string of anonymous secure phones designed and marketed directly to high-ups in organised crime. Encrochat, Sky ECC, Anom, Phantom Secure, probably more. Their plausible deniability is thin - an undercover government agent goes to the creators and basically says "I'd like to buy 30 of these for my drug-dealing empire" and the creator says "Sure, that'll be $2000 each." Later the agent calls them up and goes "Hey this guy cooking meth was busted by the cops, can you erase his phone?" and the creator goes "Sure." and erases the phone. That's not merely selling secure phones - that's joining organised crime (as the guy who makes the phones).

Someone in the French government basically said that if Graphene is another Phantom Secure, they should suffer the same consequences as Phantom Secure. That's what the comment was. It doesn't seem like Graphene is another Phantom Secure, but they're sure acting suspicious by running away from France because of this comment.

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

#437

Post by ipaddr »

Defletter wrote: post #314
ipaddr wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For you the issue is a left right issue and if the opinion matches yours it is acceptable and seen in a positive light but if it's the other side you have no tolerance. You will never have free speech just controlled speech with alternating people in power. Which I think is a worse outcome because the people in power will never allow controlled speech against them.

> For you the issue is a left right issue and if the opinion matches yours it is acceptable and seen in a positive light but if it's the other side you have no tolerance. When you remove all content and context from what is actually being said and done, then yes, this is fairly accurate, but it's also an entirely meaningless framing. But you have fallen into the trap of thinking I only support protests that I agree w…

Many people share your viewpoint on the left and right. It's natural to support free speech for what you agree and censor what you don't. It's part of living in a left or right ghetto of thought.

Take a step back. The right is in power you are not allowed to speak your ideas. The left is in power you can say anything that supports their agenda.

What you can never do is speak against the government right or left

Why would you want that? Seems like the worst of all worlds.

Isn't the history you are trying to not repeat a history of controlled speech where the wrong party got elected or got in power? Why won't this happen again and again?

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

#438

Post by lijok »

mschuster91 wrote: post #383
lijok wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not debating whether they should ban VPNs for minors with you. I'm providing a counter statement to your ill-conceived thought that this is "all manufactured fear by organized groups aiming to rip our rights to pieces".

> I'm providing a counter statement to your ill-conceived thought that this is "all manufactured fear by organized groups aiming to rip our rights to pieces". What is making Discord different from the real world? Do we ban kids from going to school because they could get bullied there? Yes, sure, some content we decide to age-gate in real life... but hell. Our parents perused the VHS porn stash of their parents. Thei…

Like I said - you've clearly never been on Discord.

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

#439

Post by BlueTemplar »

bitwize wrote: post #220
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."…

It's already the law in Brazil that online services and "terminal operating systems" must perform age verification in a secure, auditable manner. This presumably includes smartphones and computers, meaning you can't just run an arbitrary Linux distro in Brazil anymore. I expect similar laws to pass in at least a few U.S. states by 2030—places like Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, maybe Florida... When I say "the future…

Wait, isn't in that movie... what was it called... ah ! «Brazil»

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

#440

Post by piker »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #420
piker wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’…

I don’t think you understand. Either of those arrests are unconscionable by American standards. Most U.S. folks would be shocked to ever see such a thing, so it’s necessary to first show it to level-set that non-US jurisdictions don’t have any concept like the 1st Amendment. It wasn’t a slight in any way.

It was to say: even a single arrest on those grounds would be national news in the U.S. and quickly over turned by any circuit in the judiciary.

Post reply on HN