Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. UK PEOPLE: this is REALLY IMPORTANT.

UK PEOPLE: this is REALLY IMPORTANT.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
108 Posts 52 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • fonant@social.vivaldi.netF fonant@social.vivaldi.net

    @cstross @david_chisnall The likelihood of the police taking my computer for forensic examination is zero.

    I have plenty of things that I must keep private. So does everyone.

    ret@furry.engineerR This user is from outside of this forum
    ret@furry.engineerR This user is from outside of this forum
    ret@furry.engineer
    wrote last edited by
    #74

    @Fonant @cstross @david_chisnall actually it's one unfortunate incident or altercation in the street or false report or log interpretation error or mistaken identity or... or... or... etc away.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

      RE: https://social.vivaldi.net/@LonM/115966748145817371

      UK PEOPLE: this is REALLY IMPORTANT. If the government bans under-16s from using VPNs, then logically they must intend to REQUIRE AGE VERIFICATION FOR ALL VPN USE. Which will affect adults too!

      *Your* privacy and right to anonymous web browsing is at risk!

      pikesley@mastodon.me.ukP This user is from outside of this forum
      pikesley@mastodon.me.ukP This user is from outside of this forum
      pikesley@mastodon.me.uk
      wrote last edited by
      #75

      @cstross I have a fleet of devices in the field that communicate back to my infrastructure over VPN links. Do those devices now have to prove they're over 16? Do both ends? Does anybody in charge have any fucking idea what they're doing?

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • oschonrock@mastodon.socialO oschonrock@mastodon.social

        @PeterSommerlad @cstross

        Well the "home lan" is effectively the "corporate use case" I described, just for advanced IT folk.. (I used to do the same).

        The geoblocking use case is "fair" in the sense that it "just works", but almost certainly contravenes the streaming service providers T&Cs. It does nothing for privacy, since you clearly log into these services.

        (Psst: I also use TOR to get around geoblocking.. not quite as convenient, but free)

        bob_zim@infosec.exchangeB This user is from outside of this forum
        bob_zim@infosec.exchangeB This user is from outside of this forum
        bob_zim@infosec.exchange
        wrote last edited by
        #76

        @oschonrock @PeterSommerlad @cstross This gets at a particularly dumb part of “banning VPNs”: the VPN is just the transport mechanism the proxy service uses.

        No, we’re not a VPN, we’re a SOCKS proxy.

        No, SOCKS is banned now, so we shut that down. We do offer a QUIC proxy, though.

        And so on.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

          @oschonrock @Fonant @PeterSommerlad Labour has a nasty paternalist/nanny state tradition going back over a century. It's baked in at this point: Labour knows what's best for you, peasant. (So do the Tories, but they approach it differently.)

          ulrich_the_elder@thecanadian.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
          ulrich_the_elder@thecanadian.socialU This user is from outside of this forum
          ulrich_the_elder@thecanadian.social
          wrote last edited by
          #77

          @cstross @oschonrock @Fonant @PeterSommerlad Perhaps try putting a labour MP in charge of the labour party instead of a fucking tory.... It failed with Blair and it is failing with Starmer.

          oschonrock@mastodon.socialO 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • ulrich_the_elder@thecanadian.socialU ulrich_the_elder@thecanadian.social

            @cstross @oschonrock @Fonant @PeterSommerlad Perhaps try putting a labour MP in charge of the labour party instead of a fucking tory.... It failed with Blair and it is failing with Starmer.

            oschonrock@mastodon.socialO This user is from outside of this forum
            oschonrock@mastodon.socialO This user is from outside of this forum
            oschonrock@mastodon.social
            wrote last edited by
            #78

            @Ulrich_the_elder @cstross @Fonant @PeterSommerlad TBF... Blair was better..

            He communicated better. So he managed to achieve more things that a labour govt should..

            Notably in education for him..

            But yeah he fucked it up by being a religious nutcase going on crusades in the middle east...(Very Tory) Among other things

            ulrich_the_elder@thecanadian.socialU 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

              RE: https://social.vivaldi.net/@LonM/115966748145817371

              UK PEOPLE: this is REALLY IMPORTANT. If the government bans under-16s from using VPNs, then logically they must intend to REQUIRE AGE VERIFICATION FOR ALL VPN USE. Which will affect adults too!

              *Your* privacy and right to anonymous web browsing is at risk!

              sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
              sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
              sophieschmieg@infosec.exchange
              wrote last edited by
              #79

              @cstross it also means banning anyone under age from owning/renting a server in a different country, with very much the same implications for people over the age limit, since setting up a VPN endpoint is reasonably easy enough for your average technically inclined 16 year old. Oh and also, it outlaws TOR, if taken to its logical conclusion.

              rrb@infosec.exchangeR 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                RE: https://social.vivaldi.net/@LonM/115966748145817371

                UK PEOPLE: this is REALLY IMPORTANT. If the government bans under-16s from using VPNs, then logically they must intend to REQUIRE AGE VERIFICATION FOR ALL VPN USE. Which will affect adults too!

                *Your* privacy and right to anonymous web browsing is at risk!

                cstamp@mastodon.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
                cstamp@mastodon.socialC This user is from outside of this forum
                cstamp@mastodon.social
                wrote last edited by
                #80

                @cstross Haven't adults clued into the fact that trying to force kids into boxes never works out? On top of the privacy issues.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                  RE: https://social.vivaldi.net/@LonM/115966748145817371

                  UK PEOPLE: this is REALLY IMPORTANT. If the government bans under-16s from using VPNs, then logically they must intend to REQUIRE AGE VERIFICATION FOR ALL VPN USE. Which will affect adults too!

                  *Your* privacy and right to anonymous web browsing is at risk!

                  F This user is from outside of this forum
                  F This user is from outside of this forum
                  fooker@infosec.exchange
                  wrote last edited by
                  #81

                  @cstross as a kid growing up in europe and taught again and again about the resistance, I'd always thought that my lack of physical prowess would mean I'd be mostly useless if it ever happened again. But now that it's rearing it's head all I can hear is my mother saying "you'll never amount to anything spending all your days on that computer". Look at me now mom, my knowledge may just save the free world.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • sophieschmieg@infosec.exchangeS sophieschmieg@infosec.exchange

                    @cstross it also means banning anyone under age from owning/renting a server in a different country, with very much the same implications for people over the age limit, since setting up a VPN endpoint is reasonably easy enough for your average technically inclined 16 year old. Oh and also, it outlaws TOR, if taken to its logical conclusion.

                    rrb@infosec.exchangeR This user is from outside of this forum
                    rrb@infosec.exchangeR This user is from outside of this forum
                    rrb@infosec.exchange
                    wrote last edited by
                    #82

                    @sophieschmieg @cstross When I was a kid and somebody would ask my parents if I was old enough for a given book, they would say: "If he is innocent, he won't understand and it won't hurt him. If he isn't, and understands it, it won't hurt him."

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                      RE: https://social.vivaldi.net/@LonM/115966748145817371

                      UK PEOPLE: this is REALLY IMPORTANT. If the government bans under-16s from using VPNs, then logically they must intend to REQUIRE AGE VERIFICATION FOR ALL VPN USE. Which will affect adults too!

                      *Your* privacy and right to anonymous web browsing is at risk!

                      jbqueru@floss.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jbqueru@floss.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jbqueru@floss.social
                      wrote last edited by
                      #83

                      @cstross Soon you'll need to get your age verified before you can use an age-verification service.

                      moonemprah@tech.lgbtM 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                        RE: https://social.vivaldi.net/@LonM/115966748145817371

                        UK PEOPLE: this is REALLY IMPORTANT. If the government bans under-16s from using VPNs, then logically they must intend to REQUIRE AGE VERIFICATION FOR ALL VPN USE. Which will affect adults too!

                        *Your* privacy and right to anonymous web browsing is at risk!

                        stevefenton@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                        stevefenton@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                        stevefenton@mastodon.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #84

                        @cstross I've written to my MP about this already, so an easy decision to add my signature to the petition.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • cstross@wandering.shopC cstross@wandering.shop

                          RE: https://social.vivaldi.net/@LonM/115966748145817371

                          UK PEOPLE: this is REALLY IMPORTANT. If the government bans under-16s from using VPNs, then logically they must intend to REQUIRE AGE VERIFICATION FOR ALL VPN USE. Which will affect adults too!

                          *Your* privacy and right to anonymous web browsing is at risk!

                          digitalstefan@fosstodon.orgD This user is from outside of this forum
                          digitalstefan@fosstodon.orgD This user is from outside of this forum
                          digitalstefan@fosstodon.org
                          wrote last edited by
                          #85

                          @cstross Wait... presumably age verification shouldn't be required if payment method = credit card, right?

                          Only over 18's can obtain a credit card.

                          Anyone age 16-18 is in a pickle though.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • ahltorp@mastodon.nuA ahltorp@mastodon.nu

                            @oschonrock @cstross @Fonant @PeterSommerlad One reason for a Twitter ban is that it would then be much more difficult for people to excuse their presence there. And for people not wanting to be there but feel pressured to, to get an excuse to leave.

                            oschonrock@mastodon.socialO This user is from outside of this forum
                            oschonrock@mastodon.socialO This user is from outside of this forum
                            oschonrock@mastodon.social
                            wrote last edited by
                            #86

                            @ahltorp @cstross @Fonant @PeterSommerlad

                            indeed.. that, plus the inconvenience of having to use VPNs etc would pretty much kill it dead within a couple of months IMO.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • dan@axillae.telent.netD dan@axillae.telent.net

                              @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0 the amendment does not appear to define "virtual private network", so ... does it include TOR? SSH SOCKS proxy? L2TP? PPPoE?

                              only_ohm@mas.toO This user is from outside of this forum
                              only_ohm@mas.toO This user is from outside of this forum
                              only_ohm@mas.to
                              wrote last edited by
                              #87

                              @dan @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0

                              It seems to have '“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet'. TOR is not provided in the course of a business, so I guess it's out of scope.

                              only_ohm@mas.toO dan@axillae.telent.netD 2 Replies Last reply
                              0
                              • only_ohm@mas.toO only_ohm@mas.to

                                @dan @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0

                                It seems to have '“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet'. TOR is not provided in the course of a business, so I guess it's out of scope.

                                only_ohm@mas.toO This user is from outside of this forum
                                only_ohm@mas.toO This user is from outside of this forum
                                only_ohm@mas.to
                                wrote last edited by
                                #88

                                @dan @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0

                                Recursing that, it also defines "consumer" as a person not acting in the course of a business, so workplace VPNs are out of scope too.

                                christineburns@mastodon.greenC 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • jbqueru@floss.socialJ jbqueru@floss.social

                                  @cstross Soon you'll need to get your age verified before you can use an age-verification service.

                                  moonemprah@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                                  moonemprah@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                                  moonemprah@tech.lgbt
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #89

                                  @jbqueru @cstross funnily enough, I recently had an issue where I couldn't verify my age because my age wasn't verified...

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • only_ohm@mas.toO only_ohm@mas.to

                                    @dan @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0

                                    It seems to have '“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet'. TOR is not provided in the course of a business, so I guess it's out of scope.

                                    dan@axillae.telent.netD This user is from outside of this forum
                                    dan@axillae.telent.netD This user is from outside of this forum
                                    dan@axillae.telent.net
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #90

                                    @only_ohm @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0 yes, but it still doesn't define "virtual private network" itself, only the subset of VPNs that it considers relevant.

                                    jaawerth@functional.cafeJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • dan@axillae.telent.netD dan@axillae.telent.net

                                      @only_ohm @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0 yes, but it still doesn't define "virtual private network" itself, only the subset of VPNs that it considers relevant.

                                      jaawerth@functional.cafeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                      jaawerth@functional.cafeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                      jaawerth@functional.cafe
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #91

                                      @dan @only_ohm @cstross @Nicovel0 the language is inexact so they can make it mean what they think it should, yeah. or more accurate they hope they'll figure it out later when stuff comes up. Like "provided to a significant number of persons" could mean literally anything, even if we could theorycraft what it probably means

                                      As for TOR, well, my guess is it qualifies but enforcing it is another question. Possible, but seems like it'd just be wack-a-mole

                                      only_ohm@mas.toO 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • highlandlawyer@mastodon.socialH highlandlawyer@mastodon.social

                                        @Fonant @david_chisnall @cstross
                                        "We don't need to worry, because the govt will not be able to enforce it" is the counterpart to legislators who say "we don't need to put in detailed definitions & restrictions, because we trust police & prosecutors to use the powers responsibly".
                                        History has proven both are always true until they aren't.

                                        raven667@hachyderm.ioR This user is from outside of this forum
                                        raven667@hachyderm.ioR This user is from outside of this forum
                                        raven667@hachyderm.io
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #92

                                        @HighlandLawyer im not sure there is any other way, you always have to trust people to use their best judgement, and use systems of accountability to bring people into alignment with standards, _after_ the fact. I think thats true at several scales

                                        @Fonant @david_chisnall @cstross

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • oschonrock@mastodon.socialO oschonrock@mastodon.social

                                          @cstross vpns have their place in corporate networks.

                                          There they provide secure access to internal resources for remote workers.

                                          They are all but useless for personal privacy / anonymity.

                                          So while I agree with the principle of your objection to govts gating services - it is actually a faux battle based on misinformation by the VPN industry.

                                          dalfen@mstdn.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                                          dalfen@mstdn.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                                          dalfen@mstdn.social
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #93

                                          @oschonrock @cstross Curious that the government would bother banning them, then.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups