Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • 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 (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. RE: https://social.vivaldi.net/@LonM/115966748145817371

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

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
104 Indlæg 52 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • 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!

    dryak@mstdn.scienceD This user is from outside of this forum
    dryak@mstdn.scienceD This user is from outside of this forum
    dryak@mstdn.science
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #82

    @cstross Reason number "a zillion and some" why privacy, etc. is better served using something decentralized like Tor, rather than VPNs companies that can be forced to ID-check UK users.

    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 sidst redigeret af
      #83

      @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
      • 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?

        drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
        drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
        drwho@masto.hackers.town
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #84

        @dan @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0 It will include whatever they deem it does for whatever purpose they see fit. Even Citrix and VNC if they think they need to.

        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 sidst redigeret af
          #85

          @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 sidst redigeret af
            #86

            @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

            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!

              wokstation@universeodon.comW This user is from outside of this forum
              wokstation@universeodon.comW This user is from outside of this forum
              wokstation@universeodon.com
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #87

              @cstross like I said ages ago, licensing VPN users is the intent. You'll need a "good" reason to obtain one, otherwise your isp will block #vpn traffic.

              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 sidst redigeret af
                #88

                @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 sidst redigeret af
                  #89

                  @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 sidst redigeret af
                    #90

                    @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 sidst redigeret af
                      #91

                      @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 sidst redigeret af
                        #92

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

                        falken@qoto.orgF moonemprah@tech.lgbtM 2 Replies 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.

                          falken@qoto.orgF This user is from outside of this forum
                          falken@qoto.orgF This user is from outside of this forum
                          falken@qoto.org
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #93

                          @cstross @jbqueru who's going to verify my verification though?

                          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 sidst redigeret af
                            #94

                            @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 sidst redigeret af
                              #95

                              @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 sidst redigeret af
                                #96

                                @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 sidst redigeret af
                                  #97

                                  @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 sidst redigeret af
                                    #98

                                    @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.

                                    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 sidst redigeret af
                                      #99

                                      @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 sidst redigeret af
                                        #100

                                        @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 sidst redigeret af
                                          #101

                                          @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

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper