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

House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

ispreview.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#81

Post by advisedwang »

guerrilla wrote: post #24
advisedwang wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law doesn't work like that. First of all, the actual regulation that gets made probably has a definition of VPN and won't rely on a company self-describing as VPN. Secondly law enforcement and courts aren't idiots* * well, many of them are. But not in the particular way that would be needed for a simple rename to work.

Proxies aren't VPNs though. They didn't mean call proxies VPNS, they meant provide proxies.

True if you are being technically rigorous. However the "VPN" services being targeted are already what would be more accurately described as a "secure proxy". So whatever regulation gets drafted will certainly be done so to cover "secure proxies", even if it uses the term "VPN".

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#82

Post by pibaker »

iamnothere wrote: post #80
pibaker wrote: post #66

Every HN thread on social media or porn inevitably gets overrun with "but think of the children" comments calling for banning kids from social media, or the internet, or from having a phone at all. And then every time a country actually tries to ban children from the internet, they cry "but my privacy!!!" As if having to hand your id to the state to use the internet isn't exactly what you asked for. As if the regimes…

These are not the same people. I doubt that most of the people pushing for mandatory restrictions on child access care about privacy at all.

You will be surprised by the number of people (even among self proclaimed libertarians) who think children have no rights and are essentially their parents' properties.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#83

Post by iamnothere »

causalscience wrote: post #62
boznz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title of the site "Hacker News" should be a dead giveaway why this law is mocked here

Well, we've tried your thing of letting these companies call the shots. Now we'll try my thing for a bit :-) What's more hacker than experimenting to get the results you want?

No, we “hackers” will mock it and develop workarounds for it, leak ID databases to undercut support, etc. Worst case we move to sneakernets and meshes and teach kids about old school floppynets. (When I was a kid all the best stuff came by floppy, sometimes by rogue BBS.) More likely we’ll just distribute guides on using Tor and build a better ecosystem around it.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#84

Post by technion »

sublinear wrote: post #57
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is porn companies know full well nobody, nobody, wants that on their credit card statement. Kinda weird that something supposedly as natural as rain needs such levels of privacy; the hypocrisy is notable (if it's so natural and so many people do it, own it).

Single people don't care, and they are becoming the majority of adults and probably more likely consume porn too.

I have always wondered how this would go if you applied for a loan through your bank. Or a rental that wanted 'last three months financial transactions' in the application.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#86

Post by donmcronald »

Deukhoofd wrote: post #12

> may make provision for the provider of a relevant VPN service to apply to any person seeking to access its service in or from the UK age assurance which is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not that person is a child "The law we made is like super duper good!!" > Children may also turn to VPNs, which would then undermine the child safety gains of the Online Safety Act "The law we made is easily c…

> may make provision for the provider of a relevant VPN service to apply to any person seeking to access its service in or from the UK age assurance which is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not that person is a child

I think you're reading it wrong. Regulations may have a provision that allows providers to apply age assurance [systems ?] if the age assurance is highly effective at determining age.

I'm always surprised how ambiguous the writing is for this kind of stuff. Maybe that's the point. If the regulations don't (may is optional) have the provision, does that mean they need to demand ID?

IMO, highly effective = our buddies' tech that we declare highly effective. The whole ID push around the world is big tech trying to set up government mandated services that you're going to be forced to pay for, either directly or via taxes.

The end game is probably digital IDs with digitally signed requests for everything you do. And, of course, corrupt individuals and criminals will somehow be able to get as many digital IDs as they want.

That money should be spent on education. We're being robbed.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#87

Post by ares623 »

qingcharles wrote: post #75
ares623 wrote: post #45

Every time this comes up I always take the opportunity to suggest that it should've been a ban on _smart_phones. Not dumb phones, not laptops, not even tablets (i.e. those without sim). Easier to enforce, you don't have to rely on the very same companies that peddle the thing you're trying to ban in the first place. It can disrupt the network effects that could hopefully be enough to let people voluntarily cut it out…

It is really hard to find dumb phones to buy. Even the dumbest ones in stores right now, flip phones that look like they are 20 years old, still have some very janky Internet features baked in.

That's because smartphones are objectively superior. When they are banned, a niche will become available for dumb phones and manufacturers to fill. Still having access to janky internet is not perfect yes, but I would argue it is still way better than current smartphones. Just adding a little bit of friction can shortcircuit the addiction people currently have, and the social media corps definitely know this and are super obsessed with removing any friction at all at every step of their user journey.

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#88

Post by mghackerlady »

dlisboa wrote: post #48
armada651 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this becomes law, then yes. But then people will turn to VPS providers instead and set up their own VPNs, which will then prompt a law to demand age verification before renting any server. I wonder how far they're willing to go down this rabbit hole.

All of this would easily be solved by just banning social media. Nothing will convince me they are a net-positive to society.

The government shouldn't be limiting any legal communications over the internet

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#89

Post by sadeshmukh »

pibaker wrote: post #66

Every HN thread on social media or porn inevitably gets overrun with "but think of the children" comments calling for banning kids from social media, or the internet, or from having a phone at all. And then every time a country actually tries to ban children from the internet, they cry "but my privacy!!!" As if having to hand your id to the state to use the internet isn't exactly what you asked for. As if the regimes…

Sounds like the Goomba fallacy: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy

Re: House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs

#90

Post by mghackerlady »

causalscience wrote: post #61
epiccoleman wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With their "don't put the cat inside the microwave" stickers not sure what this means, my microwave does not have such a sticker > "coffee is too hot" lawsuits I'd encourage you to look into the case you refer to[1] and decide for yourself whether the lawsuit feels frivolous given the facts. My read is that the lawsuit was justified. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

If caring that people might burn themselves with hot water is nanny state, then caring that people might burn themselves with macdonalds coffee is also nanny state.

Caring that some restaurant employee is negligent enough to pour coffee hot enough to require an 8 day hospital stay isn't a nanny state, that is basic public safety. If I got in a hot tub expecting it to be hot tub temperature and it burnt my skin off I'd expect them to get in trouble for endangering me by misleading me into believing it was normal hot tub temperature.
Post reply on HN