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

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#721

Post by jeroenhd »

impossiblefork wrote: post #104
miki123211 wrote: post #82

I'm really confused about what would realistically happen if Wikimedia just decided to ignore those regulations. They have surely ignored demands to censor Wikipedia in more authoritarian countries. What makes the UK different? Extradition treaties? Do they even apply here? I have the same confusion about Signal's willingness to leave Europe if chat control is imposed[1], while still providing anti-censorship tools f…

They don't apply. Delivering this kind of thing is obviously allowed in the US, so there's presumably no mutual criminality.

I'm reasonably sure several articles and uploaded artworks violate various US state regulations on adult content, though the states would be idiots trying to enforce them against Wikipedia; that'd only increase the risk of some kind of higher court declaring the law unconstitutional.

Geographically speaking, about half the US has "think of the kids" laws that are similar to the UK's.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#722

Post by jeroenhd »

ljosifov wrote: post #223

US should slap travel bans on UK politicians travelling to Disney parks and similar in Florida with their families. And/or with their older children visiting NYC. The combined pressure of the wives and their children, will knock sense in their thick skulls quickly. In the sense of - being stupid is not cost free. Atm it's cost free for them, and costly for me.

Disneyland Paris is a three hour train ride away from London. I doubt the British politicians would go to American Disney Parks unless they were already there anyway.

Most Britons support the current rules: https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-brit...

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#723

Post by codedokode »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #702
codedokode wrote: post #337

In Russia there is a plan to make special SIM cards for children, that would not allow registration in social networks. Isn't it better than UK legislation? The whole idea that every site or app must do verification is stupid. It would be much easier and better to do verification at the store when buying a laptop, a phone or a SIM card. The verification status can be burned in firmware memory, and the device would al…

A simple solution would just be an enforced response header marking content as NSFW as well as mandatory phone parental controls that enforce them.

No, the header should mark content as safe (for example: "Content-Safety: US-14; GB-0"), and lack of header should mark the content "unsafe". In this case, existing websites do not need to change anything.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#724

Post by dartharva »

codedokode wrote: post #337

In Russia there is a plan to make special SIM cards for children, that would not allow registration in social networks. Isn't it better than UK legislation? The whole idea that every site or app must do verification is stupid. It would be much easier and better to do verification at the store when buying a laptop, a phone or a SIM card. The verification status can be burned in firmware memory, and the device would al…

Are social networks in Russia mandated to ask for phone numbers to login?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#725

Post by account42 »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #481
yupyupyups wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>parents You do understand that there are creeps out there grooming children, right? Parents definitely do need to have oversight over their own kids. Children should absolutely not have privacy on the internet. The ID requirement is terrible, but saying that children need privacy to explore their sexuality on the internet is very problematic. If this is the position the UK government holds then that brings into ques…

Minors are still humans who deserve rights. They should not be considered property of parents, regardless of fear mongering about grooming. Teenagers should have the right to access information without their parents knowing, as their parents can be just as, if not more dangerous to their health and well being as a hypothetical groomer. Many teens face real abuse from their parents over their sexuality. They should no…

Minors can have unfettered access to the web once grown up and yes the parents should be able to decide when that is to some point (that point being the 18th birthday). There is really no reason kids need to be able to "explore their sexuality" any earlier than that.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#726

Post by nelox »

The decision upholding the Online Safety Act verification rules against Wikipedia’s challenge overlooks practical and proportionality concerns. Wikipedia operates with minimal commercial infrastructure, relies on volunteers and does not require age-restricted content verification for its core encyclopaedia. The law’s blanket requirement for platforms to implement age verification fails to distinguish between services with high-risk harmful material and those providing general reference. That is a regulatory overreach that imposes compliance burdens without measurable safety gains. The ruling also discounts the privacy risks of verification schemes, which can create centralised databases vulnerable to misuse or breach. This is not a hypothetical threat; data leaks from verification providers are well documented. A risk-based approach would focus enforcement on platforms with demonstrated harm while exempting low-risk educational resources. Treating all online services identically undercuts the intended aim of child protection and diverts resources from genuine problem areas.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#727

Post by account42 »

terminalshort wrote: post #457
yupyupyups wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not anti-games. >From people who would harm them? Like who? I really hope you don't mean the kids' parents.

Problem is, parents are literally the most likely people to do that

Only if you have a very biased definition of harm.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#728

Post by codedokode »

jbjbjbjb wrote: post #678
codedokode wrote: post #337

In Russia there is a plan to make special SIM cards for children, that would not allow registration in social networks. Isn't it better than UK legislation? The whole idea that every site or app must do verification is stupid. It would be much easier and better to do verification at the store when buying a laptop, a phone or a SIM card. The verification status can be burned in firmware memory, and the device would al…

Apple, Google etc are already implementing the Digital Credentials API standard which would make this type age verification much more secure.

No, "digital credentials" is an awful idea because it requires to store your ID on your phone and thus make it accessible to Apple and Google and secret courts. What I suggest is simply to store a single "isAdult" bit on device, without revealing any identity, and make apps like browser do the censorship on device, without sending any data to a webite. The algorithm is as follows:

    if isAdult == 0 and website doesn't send a "safe-content" header, then:
        browser refuses to display content
    if isAdult == 0 and photo in a messenger doesn't contain a "safe-content" metadata, then
        photo viewer refuses to display content
    if isAdult == 0 and the app is not marked as safe, then
        app store refuses to download the app and OS refuses to launch it
With my approach, you don't need to store your ID on your device, you don't need to send your ID anywhere, and website operators and app developers do not need to do anything because by default they will be considered not safe. So my solution's cost is ZERO for website operators and app developers. As a website operator you don't need to change anything and to verify the age.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#729

Post by bratbag »

monooso wrote: post #501
drawfloat wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it. I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government (which, by the way, there is still a non zero chance could be Labour) will necessarily reverse this. Maybe Reform would tweak the topics, but I’m not convinced any party can be totally trusted to reverse this.

Every single Labour politician who voted on this bill voted against it. Peter Kyle was one such MP, and now he's making statements like: > I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. It's maddening. The worst part is that they've somehow put me in…

They voted against it because they thought it didn't go far enough.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#730

Post by codedokode »

jeroenhd wrote: post #716
codedokode wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your comment, the government knows which sites you visit anyway because it can see the SNI field in HTTPS traffic. The main point is that the verification is done on the device. The device has a digitally signed flag, saying whether it is owned by an adult user or not. And the OS on the device without the flag allows using only safe apps and websites sending a "Safe: yes" HTTP header. User doesn't…

> because it can see the SNI field in HTTPS traffic ECH (the successor to eSNI) is becoming more and more common and with Let's Encrypt soon offering IP certificates, any website will be able to hide their SNI. Digital verification exclusively on-device doesn't work because addons and alternative applications make it possible to bypass those checks. There's no credible reason to trust local software to protect the ki…

> Digital verification exclusively on-device doesn't work because addons and alternative applications make it possible to bypass those checks.

The OS on device with "isAdult == false" would allow only to install apps from app store, which are marked by developers as "safe". Alternative apps which do not respect isAdult bit won't be marked as safe and cannot be installed from an app store. And sideloading or bootloader unlocking, of course, will be disabled if the phone has "isAdult == false". There is no simple way to bypass this protection, even for a skilled adult, because modern OSes are closed-source and digitally signed and you don't have the source code or private key.

> The point of the Act is that the UK government no longer pretends to believe that the "I am 18 or older" checkbox is actually stopping anyone, and that there are no better alternatives.

The better alternative is "isAdult" bit that is stored on device, cannot be changed by the user, and respected by an OS and white-listed apps. It doesn't require sending one's IDs or photos of one's face anywhere. It is better in every aspect and requires ZERO costs from website operators and app developers for compliance. The only ones who will bear the costs would be OS developers, like Apple or Microsoft who have a lot of money and engineers to implement this.

> The point of the Act

I glanced through the overview of the Act and it seems that the main point is in letting the government (Ofcom) to remove online content promptly without long procedures.

Post reply on HN