Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
It’s like watching an online version of Brexit, without the referendum
"Many of these free VPNs are riddled with issues," said Daniel Card, a cyber-security expert with the Chartered Institute for IT (BCS).
"Some act as traffic brokers for data harvesting firms, others are so poorly built they expose users to attacks."
He told the BBC despite posing a range of potential privacy risks, such apps "end up in the hands of kids trying to watch age-restricted content", or adults "trying to get round blocks".
Ah yes, there it is: won't anyone think of the children. I expected that argument higher up in the article.
The UK politicians who thought this was a good idea deserve a "ban"
Seriously, how did they not see this coming?
So surely no corporations or governments will be using them to remote in, right?
UK: from the EU to the Uzbekistan of the Atlantic.
EU is working on that, too
I can't see anywhere in the article that says they may be 'banned'.
They can try though. They can also try and collect water in a sieve.
Eh, a back bencher has called for a report on how VPNs interfere with ofcoms ability to enforce/regulate the online safety act within 6 months.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vpns-online-safety-bill-labour-champion-b2239810.html
"My new clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill’s passage, a report on the effect of VPN use on Ofcom’s ability to enforce the requirements under clause 112.
"If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems."
The likely conclusion of that report is that "VPNs circumvent the age verification requirement, so circumvent the OSA, so VPNs must be banned"
Yes, I read that. 'Likely conclusion' does not equal a ban though.
I'm just being a bit pedantic about the headline - this whole thing is crappy (and unworkable) enough as it is, without jumping to conclusions.
The only other solutions to "VPNs circumvent OSA" are:
Licence/regulate VPN usage (which is essentially a ban WRT the OSA).
Extremely difficult to do. It's fairly trivial to just tunnel your connection over SSH to a VPS in another country.
Also fairly trivial to get a VPN that tunnels over a websocket, making the traffic identical to website traffic.
The government is going to play cat&mouse with decades of legitimate infosec.
Do something progressive, and drop the OSA (which isn't going to happen).
They've literally just implemented these laws. It's not getting repealed.
They are going to make consumer use of anything that changes the public source address of a packet illegal.
How they enforce that, I dunno.
Like the whole OSA, it seems really poorly thought out. I dunno how they completely overlooked VPN usage
It’s about time we banned CGNAT.
Somehow I don't see this being a popular move
What's with the clickbait headline? Did the linked article change or did OP twist it to mean opposite?
Linked source says:
Headline "Labour rules out VPN ban in UK but issues warning to UK households"
Byline "Labour won't ban the use of Virtual Private Networks"
in china, the ccp will punish citizens for circumventing their internet firewall
"Keep calm and give up all and everything for your own safety"
OOOHH yeah, let's ban a standardized security system because we're idiots
Politicians always look like that kid with a propellor cap on their head