No, the UK’s Online Safety Act Doesn’t Make Children Safer Online
(www.eff.org)
from themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to technology@lemmy.world on 10 Aug 13:48
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/50836847
from themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to technology@lemmy.world on 10 Aug 13:48
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/50836847
If they doing this might as well ban books also for harmful content to children:
…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_books_banned_by_governme…
threaded - newest
You mean sharing their real identity with online companies who will sell and/or lose it to hackers doesn’t make children sAfE oNLinE??!!?!11?!
Hopefully this will happen sooner than later and change people’s minds about the whole thing.
Yeah, it won’t be good, but it’s going to happen eventually. Sooner is better.
Obviously emotive reason for an outright erosion of personal liberty and freedom, shocked Pikachu is shocked
It will make kids really good at bypassing the restrictions that get put in place, which will probably require them to go to some of the shadier places on the web, which could put them in more danger.
The people who made these rules don’t understand the fundamental rule of the internet: any online restriction put in place, can be overcome with tools and knowledge that are also readily available on the Internet
Internet monitoring should fall to the parents. When the government parents, they parent everyone and abuse their power.
There are tons of products to prevent access to apps and websites. If all else pass a law so users opt-in to restricted internet access.
Exactly. A kid that wants to look at censored stuff won’t spend much time making sure the workaround is safe. He’ll just use the first free VPN that works. Which will probably sell his data. It’s not like these kids will spend a considerable amount of time to choose the safest, most private and reputable VPN. Also, they won’t be using the paid ones.
Depressing as it is to think about, I honestly expect that the next step is going to be a ban on VPNs which tunnel out of the country. office vpns where you just connect to your corporate network wouldn’t be affected, but anyone trying to appear in a different country will be acting illegally. This will obviously cause other problems but it’s all in the name of PrOtEcTiNg tHe ChiLdReN so I’m sure that’s next on the chopping block.
This is what happens when we have non-technical morons trying to regulate a technical industry.
Prob should double down the efforts rather than scrap it then right?
I saw an interesting video suggesting that the real motivation is to give megacorps like Google a new business acting as "banks" for identity, i.e. the Internet would get so inconvenient that people would just save their identity with Google (or Meta, etc) and then use them to log in to other websites.
I probably explained it badly, but the video I saw is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAd-OOrdyMw
People in the comments pointed out that those companies would also have the ability to delete or suspend your identity verification if you did something they didn't like (or refused to do something they wanted). Reminds me of the SIN from Shadowrun .
Indeed. Anybody but the biggies will have an impossible task trying to convince people to verify their ID, so all the smaller sites will switch to only allowing registration/sign-in through Google/Apple/MS’s Oauth, and depreciate the username/password option. When “signing in with Google/whatever”, Google will simply pass a flag “adult” along with authorizing. In the end, they become the gatekeepers for the whole web, collecting tremendous valuable data in the process and gaining even more power over your identity.
Always keep in mind that the small players will always take the easiest option, and the big players want more control.
Facebook are the same, been the same for years.
This isn’t the motivation in Europe where there’s a deep skepticism about those - all foreign - companies.
There is no need for conspiracy-type thinking. “Think of the children” has always been a powerful and real motivating force, not just a cover for nefarious other stuff. You need to recognise that, even if it’s wrong-headed.
It being a real and powerful motivational force means it’s one of the more useful covers.
Just because it motivates the voters/customers doesn’t mean it’s the genuine reason behind a decision.
I cannot think of a single recent “think of the children” based action that was intended to and actually helped the children in a meaningful way.
Can you?
Are you judging the motivation purely based on the effects? Otherwise, how are you working out what goes on inside people’s heads?
I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better. It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it’s not like they understand the subject of this article.
No, no, the accusation is that politicians are lying.
Let’s phrase this another way. Asking every single website in existence to implement and maintain an ID database and monitoring system is expensive, yes? So, why wouldn’t private companies shift some of this responsibility off to a 3rd party who specializes specifically in this service?
If I were google, I would:
The only thing left to do is lobby. Politicians might not have this vision, but they do understand really expensive dinners.
In order to be lying, they must know better - that’s my point. You can’t have a nefarious plan without understanding the plan.
That is more of an uphill battle in an environment like Europe or the UK where politicians are deeply skeptical of American big tech companies.
A combination of the effects, the prior actions, reactions and consequences of the subject and others in similar categories/contexts (to the extent i actually know/pay attention).
I don’t know of another way of performing predictive analysis.
Also that didn’t answer the question.
I’m genuinely not sure what you are saying here, but i’ll go line by line, tell me if I’m reading it incorrectly.
I don’t know what this means, there are voters who genuinely believe this, yes, i think i follow that bit.
I’m not sure what you think is crazy here (i’m not disagreeing, i just don’t understand) , do you mean to say the politicians do or don’t know better ?
This i agree with, i can also anecdotally add first hand experience of the consequences of such lack of understanding.
Not sure how it ties in to the other sentence though.
The other part is that christofascists really want to ban “porn” (read: anything they don’t like), and they know age verification will make their operation almost impossible. The fact that corporations like Google might get to validate people they advertise to is a positive side effect.
Well, who’d have thought.
Makes identity theft much more likely though
If you’re in the uk, feel free to sign this so that your signature can be dismissed or ignored in parliament in a few weeks when this petition is shot down:
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903 (Petition is for: “Repeal the Online Safety Act”)
It seems like they have replied and said they won’t repel the act.
That was their initial response. When a petition reaches 10k signatures, it requires a written response from the gvt. When it hits 100k signatures, it requires a “debate” in parliament. This one has received the response, but has not yet been debated. The debates are often shams where the topic is tokenly brought up and then routinely dismissed. But it does at least require that they read the signed text.
In this case I think the argument is poorly made in the petition text. It does not even mention digital security, and the risk of a data leak for ID collectors.
Every time one of these petitions comes up it’s always badly worded. I still think that the stop killing games petition was badly worded and gave them an easy out.
tbh the petition owner should be part of the parliament debate. at the very least to give a speech. I think that would be a very reasonable thing to accommodate, and would give a chance for the argument to be prepared and properly made. That would be very democratic.
At the very least I wish these people would announce the wording of the petition in advance of filing the petition, so that it could be worked on. There are lawyers out there who are interested in this course I’m sure they could help, but unfortunately once the petition is filed that’s the wording you have to go with even if it’s inaccurate and loose in its definition.
Has anyone got any half decent ideas for how to improve age verification? Obvs without this draconian shit.
I had a thought once about doing it with NFTs, where a company could independently verify you with certain metadata, like ‘is human’ or ‘is over 18’ etc. Then you get issued your token, and these sites can verify you without de-anoninising you.
Not sure if that’s a naff idea, but would be interested to know if anyone’s got anything better
The EU has something in the works with zero knowledge proofs. Which would be a good way to do this.
I still don’t agree on the fact that this needs doing at all… But at least it’s not as bad as the UK’s half-baked nonsense
Unfortunately, even EU’s solution doesn’t support non-google-backed android.
Obviously not, but it’s not like they’re gonna be honest and call it the UK Online Spying Act.
So most federated platforms should be fine, as they don’t have any revenue(usually) and blocking is hard because DNS is easy to bypass and there just are so many instances already.
This might actually make people move to Lemmy nice.