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

731–740 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#731

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…

> If the tech industry had felt any responsibility, they would've been working on a solution to this problem somewhere in the last thirty or so years of internet pornography, but so far they've done nothing and are all out of ideas.

OS developers like Apple and Microsoft, and hardware vendors simply don't want to spend money on what gives them no returns.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#732

Post by bratbag »

verisimi wrote: post #553
hilbert42 wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Wiki had the guts it'd leave the UK. Nothing will happen unless there's a backlash from the citizenry.

Wiki isn't the citizenry. And no one voted for this. When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions. And even then, if both parties want to do something, as in this case, there is nowhere to go. This is force. If you can't say 'no', this is immoral, coercive force, even if the person or party doing the forcing says it i…

The libertarian fantasy where its possible to exist without the choices of others impacting you, doesn't work in the real world.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#733

Post by bratbag »

llbbdd wrote: post #530
Ntrails wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments. It would be an extraordinary amount of work for a government that can barely keep up with the fires of its own making let alone the many the world is imposing upon them. Along with that, watching the horse trading going on over every change they make - I don't see how they ever get a meaningful final text over t…

They should just do the same thing many governments the world over have done - adopt a version of the US constitution. Easy, clean, and only massively ironic.

Pass.

Im glad not to be confined by historical rules invented by people who could not hope to predict the future, and would not choose to put that kind of burden on my descendents.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#734

Post by account42 »

suslik wrote: post #542
kylec wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What mechanism does the UK government have to extract fines from Wikipedia?

“Pay this or we will concoct some criminal charges on your entire leadership team, append each of you to interpol lists and formally request your extradition” is probably a good start.

Good luck with that. The US has that power, the UK doesn't.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#735

Post by codedokode »

dartharva wrote: post #724
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?

Every website is required by law to do phone verification or use other method that confirms real identity (for example, auth through government services website or biometric data). As for social networks like Vk, they require a phone number since long ago before the law changed.

Also a phone number verification is needed if you want to connect to free WiFi in a subway or a bus or a train. Foreign phone numbers are often not supported in this case.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#736

Post by myaccountonhn »

codedokode wrote: post #723
myaccountonhn wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That works too. Anything is better than this. Infinitely less work for existing websites, not as privacy invasive, not such a massive security risk.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#737

Post by lambdas »

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…

The only time a labour majority voted against this bill was when an amendment to make category 1 sites have optional controls for users (something that would have prevented this).

I’m going to guess that our MP’s are tech illiterate enough as it is, that when an opaque term like “what is a category 1” came up, someone hand waved over it and said “think Facebook or Twitter”

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#738

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…

Also, current UK Act divides websites into categories and has different content moderation requirements for them. With my approach, all websites that do not mark content as "safe" would be blocked by default, which is much safer and leaves no loopholes.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#739

Post by Jensson »

account42 wrote: post #671
BDPW wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark, Sweden and Netherlands have the same system and it works reasonably well actually.

The same Denmark whose representative is in the EU council is championing for similar laws?

EU representatives are not elected the same way, so that is unrelated.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#740

Post by account42 »

codedokode wrote: post #468
Zarathustra30 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That solution reminds me of the evil bit. However, if someone has the skills or resources to unset the bit, they likely are allowed to anyway. https://archive.org/details/rfc3514

In case with Windows laptop, the verification proof might be for example, a digitally signed serial number of the motherboard (and the OS is itself signed to prevent tampering). While it's possible to work around this, an average kid or adult is unlikely to do it. And in case with a phone there is almost zero chance to hack it.

And this would be just as bad as the UK solution as now you've outlawed any third-party operating systems and computers.
Post reply on HN