RE: https://social.vivaldi.net/@LonM/115966748145817371
-
@cstross Soon you'll need to get your age verified before you can use an age-verification service.
-
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!
@cstross I've written to my MP about this already, so an easy decision to add my signature to the petition.
-
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!
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
-
-
@cstross Soon you'll need to get your age verified before you can use an age-verification service.
-
-
@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
-
@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.@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
-
@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.
@oschonrock @cstross Curious that the government would bother banning them, then.
-
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!
When did we get a right to anonymous web browsing exactly?
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
