6 ms·
House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs
- ChrisArchitect 8mo agoEarlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46763548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46763548
- supernes 8mo agoPapers, please. Glory to Arstotzka!
- retired 8mo agoDoes that mean that VPN providers now need identification before you can open an account?
- ASalazarMX 8mo agoBut think of the children! That it has its own Wikipedia page is a sign of the abuse of this argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
- victor9000 8mo agoThis is the real intent
- krisbolton 8mo agoNo. This a motion within one house of Parliament and hasn't become law, nor is there any guarantee it will be. It's something to be aware of.
- armada651 8mo agoIf 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.
- gjsman-1000 8mo agoNot necessarily - how is a kid paying for a VPS server? A personal debit card (which requires ID verification anyway, and likely has their parents able to see activity)? A personal credit card (which definitely requires ID + 18+)? Stealing their parents' card (works for like 5 days)? Does the VPS company block VPN ports without verification, similar to how most companies handle email? Do you think VPS services have any interest, at all, in an underage clientele? The proposed law is plenty effective - saying otherwise is like saying kids can bypass age verification at the knife shop or alcohol store by using eBay. No sane mind says that age verification is therefore useless.
- whatshisface 8mo agoIf having a credit card and the ability to make purchases was good enough as an ID system, they could have simply made it the law instead of requiring tech companies to collect those sweet, sweet personal ID document photos.
- gjsman-1000 8mo agoThe UK law doesn't say you have to use ID photos, that's porn companies knowing that charging even £1 a visit would be devastating to the business. Credit card verification is a completely legal method in the UK.
- whatshisface 8mo agoThey can check for credit cards without requiring any payment. Are you sure that's sufficient given these vaguely worded laws? If so many HN readers could solve the whole problem by making websites which issued digital signatures of random numbers to anyone who can support a £0.01 debit which is then immediately reversed.
- gjsman-1000 8mo agoThe 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).
- krunck 8mo agoAlso VPS services because "SSH -D".
- whynotmaybe 8mo agoHow would this work with a VPN outside of UK that doesn't do it ? Will it be blocked?
- yakbarber 8mo agoyou pay them, isn't that already enough to identify any non-fraudulent account is needed?
- lacoolj 8mo agoVery shallow, naive approach to child safety. This is like banning children from riding scooters on a highway. They're just going to use a bike instead. Danger still exists. VPNs are not the only way around this, so if you want to ban the "method of access" you need to be much more broad, and get the parents involved.
- ASalazarMX 8mo agoA innefective mandate for the intended purpose, but a very effective mandate to know what adults use VPNs. Between this and the repeated attempts at encryption backdoors, this is something I would expect from a totalitarian regime that is preparing for civil unrest, not the UK.
- fooqux 8mo ago> but a very effective mandate to know what adults use VPNs. How? I suppose if the VPN services all started requiring age verification that might tell you this info. But I very much doubt that'll happen, as it runs completely counter to many legitimate VPN services' missions.
- romanovcode 8mo ago> Very shallow, naive approach to child safety. It's naive of you to think this has anything to do with the child safety.
- kelseyfrog 8mo agoIt's like banning children from owning and carrying handguns. They still have knives and ultimately fists. We cannot eliminate harms, therefore we should not attempt to reduce harms.
- CJefferson 8mo agoBut, we do ban children on scooters from roads in the UK, but they can go on bikes? I don't understand your metaphor.. what you are suggesting is what we do and it's sensible.
- linhns 8mo agoHow to enforce?
- cyberpunk 8mo agoSame way as they do with porn? Massive fines. Or the threat thereof.
- Deukhoofd 8mo ago> 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 circumvented :("
- donmcronald 8mo ago> 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.
- Hizonner 8mo ago> I'm always surprised how ambiguous the writing is for this kind of stuff. That's because-- (a) The actual legislators vaguely realize that they're too lazy and stupid to get anything right in detail, so they delegate to the regulatory apparatus. (b) Neither the legislators nor the regulators are ever quite sure what they can politically get away with actually demanding, or how fast they can politically get away with moving, so they want both the ability to grab anything that looks like they can hold it, and the ability to deny that they ever meant to ask for anything that's blowing back too hard on them. (c) Both the legislators and the regulators want to be able to threaten various actors with draconian actions that are at least possibly authorized under that kind of vague language, in order to get concessions that they are not authorized to demand (and that would be too hot politically to give them authorization to demand).
- antonvs 8mo agoI foresee a lot of VPN companies starting to offer "secure proxy" services or something like that. "It's not a VPN, it's a secure proxy!"
- advisedwang 8mo agoThe 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.
- guerrilla 8mo agoProxies aren't VPNs though. They didn't mean call proxies VPNS, they meant provide proxies.
- advisedwang 8mo agoTrue 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".
- zrn900 8mo agoAfter enforcing age verification to prevent children from viewing those pesky Gaza genocide videos that Israel did not want them to see, they gotta ensure that those brats wont be able to get around it and still see the videos. Its amazing how this censorship was brought on rapidly and precisely after Netanyahu demanded it at the start of last year. No surprise as half of Starmer government was funded by zionists.
- landl0rd 8mo agoI really don't think governments need a kick in the tail from a foreign power to try to grab more power. It's just what they do by nature.
- AlexandrB 8mo agoNot sure what you're going on about. I don't think children should be watching any genocide videos. Is that something you watched a lot of as a child?
- c0m47053 8mo agoThe thing is, it's not really children who lose access to this sort of content, it's the user who doesn't want to give Reddit or Twitter or whoever else a copy of their driving licence. Without age verification, they don't see the truth of something like Gaza, because it's ages restricted. They can however view the other, sanitised version of the story.
- ChrisArchitect 8mo ago[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46763548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46763548
- 4fterd4rk 8mo agoUK nanny state makes it an nonviable place to live. It's pervasive from the moment you step off the plane at Heathrow and see the inane safety stickers covering every surface "WARNING: DOOR" "WARNING: WATER FROM HOT TAP IS HOT" as well as the CCTV cameras.
- causalscience 8mo ago[flagged]
- 4fterd4rk 8mo agoStella Liebeck was seriously injured by that McDonald's coffee and it's a myth perpetuated by the McDonald's PR team that it was a frivolous lawsuit. She was in the hospital for eight days and required skin grafts. Do some research.
- SapporoChris 8mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaura... "Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee#Preparing_the_beverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee#Preparing_the_beverage "Optimal coffee extraction occurs between 91 and 96 °C (196 and 205 °F).Ideal holding temperatures range from 85 to 88 °C (185 to 190 °F) to as high as 93 °C (199 °F), and the ideal serving temperature is 68 to 79 °C (154 to 174 °F). I'm aware of the injuries she incurred. I think it is frivolous because hot temperatures are simply part of the nature of coffee. McDonalds did not select the vehicle with out cup holders for Stella. McDonalds did not select the sweatpants that Stella chose to wear. McDonalds didn't spill the coffee in her lap. Lastly, even non-coffee drinkers are aware that coffee is hot.
- Hizonner 8mo agoNormal people do not serve coffee anywhere close to that hot. Sorry to burst your bubble.
- ck2 8mo agoah the country of brexit has more "clever ideas" something I find myself saying often lately watching BBC News every morning How about Cloudflare Warp? And don't some browsers like Opera have builtin VPN? What about tunnels like Hurricane Electric?
- irusensei 8mo agoDid the CEO of Tor announced when age verification features will be implemented?
- causalscience 8mo agoI'm in the UK and I've been involved in advocating for this. I find it utterly frustrating to read the "think of the children" mockery here on HN. I argue that this is good. There's many reasons why children having unfettered access to the internet and different campaigners care about different aspects, so I'm going to talk about the one I care about: addiction, destroyed ability to focus, and dopamine desensitization. In the UK (and elsewhere in the world, I imagine) there's a huge problem with people addicted to phones and children are especially vulnerable. I don't care if adults are vulnerable, they have to make their own decisions. But I care that parents that do everything right in terms of educating their children on how to be healthy with respect of phones (like me and my partner) then have to send their children to schools where they're given ipads. It's not fair to say "banning doesnt work you should just not give your children phones", but then force you to send your children to schools that give them ipads and other distractions. It's a matter of network effects (something that HN loooves talking about). In addition to the fact that phones are engineered to be addictive, you have the fact that in many schools EVERY child is on social media, and so any family that wants to stay away has to decide between isolating their child from society, or selling themselves into the "engagement industry". I think that banning is a valid approach. It won't be 100% effective, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that it will introduce friction (another thing that HN looooves talking about) and so will reduce the total number on children that is on social media and therefore reduce the social need for other children to be in. So, we're adding friction to break or weaken the network effects that keep these cancer companies harming children in schools.
- monsecchris 8mo agoThe reason you want this is because the only way to implement it facilitates your tyranny and it still wont achieve what you pretend to desire.
- miningape 8mo ago> I think that banning is a valid approach Are we talking about VPNs or phones in general? Because somewhere in this we jumped from VPNs to phones in general, and these things are not equivalent. A phone ban in general for children, maybe I could agree with you on. But, a VPN ban on those grounds alone is utterly pointless: it's not like there aren't millions of other bits of internet crack children can easily find without a VPN. Not addressing the actual concerns and instead pointing fingers at a totally different, larger issue reeks of "won't somebody think of the children". All with the convenient downstream effect of revealing which citizens own VPNs.
- ares623 8mo agoEvery 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 of their lives. People are primed to get rid of it, but can't because it is so addicting and said network effects.
- qingcharles 8mo agoIt 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.
- ares623 8mo agoThat'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.
- IlikeMadison 8mo agoChina, Iran, UK. same stuff, different names.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- javascriptfan69 8mo agoWe will try everything except regulating the algorithmic content feeds themselves.
- causalscience 8mo agoYo, I'm all for banning all of these companies from my country. That would be ideal. But then you'll have HN: NOOOO it's not effective, people will just use VPNs nanny state! Oppression! Freedom of speech!
- pibaker 8mo agoIf algorithmic feed is so bad then why are you on hacker news, a website with an algorithmic feed that is notoriously non-transparent and often accused of being manipulated by bad actors?
- javascriptfan69 8mo ago"If smoking is so bad then why are you smoking?" Because I'm addicted like everyone else.
- pibaker 8mo agoGo to your account page, turn on noprocrast and set minaway to a very large number. You effectively ban your own account once you click confirm. Now set up home firewall / device blocking settings and block the HN domain. The first step towards overcoming addiction is admitting that you have one. I pray for your speedy recovery.
- deaux 8mo agoBecause obviously "algorithmic" is an oversimplification. Even a chronological feed is "algorithmic". What needs banning is the combination of "behavioral personalization + infinite content/scroll". HN's feed has neither of these elements.
- NekkoDroid 8mo agoI assume they mean personalized algorithms and not algorithms in general as that would encompas literally anything programmed not based on true RNG. And to my knowledge HN doesn't have any personalized feed.
- pibaker 8mo agoEvery 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 most interested in "protecting the kid" aren't exactly the ones who puts you in jail for a meme too spicy. You reap what you sow. Congrats on making the internet worse.
- iamnothere 8mo agoThese are not the same people. I doubt that most of the people pushing for mandatory restrictions on child access care about privacy at all.
- pibaker 8mo agoYou 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.
- SauntSolaire 8mo agoGranted, but that's different than thinking they're the states property.
- sadeshmukh 8mo agoSounds like the Goomba fallacy: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy
- AuthAuth 8mo agoYou either ban children from social media through age restrictions or you ban the harmful content from social media. We cant just the next generation get cooked. Both are hard to implement and unpopular and attack freedom but you must pick one because the harm is so clear.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- puppycodes 8mo agoI'm always reminded of the Snowden revelations that the GCHQ was (and still is) saving, catagorizing, and performing deep packet inspection of all internet traffic. Nothing suprises me anymore in the UK. It's been extremely dystopian for a long time.
- polski-g 8mo agoSo parents can just sign up for children? What problem is this solving? If my government was censoring my child of course I'd sign up a Facebook/Mullvad account for them.
- subscribed 8mo agoYup, I'm signing up for my kids the moment they ask. At this point it's outrageous. Oh, and I'm also reading on Amnesiac and other stealth VPN protocols. The only thing this will achieve, is kids' deep understand the government is hostile cluster of entities lying through their teeth.
- weirdmantis69 8mo agoPeople worry about the US but there is no country I'm more worried about than the UK.
- Camiladiaz 8mo ago[dead]