5 ms·

This doesn't read like a neutral analysis to me. On the other hand the UK will mostly continue to support GDPR, in the same way all our phones will be USB-C, E

This doesn't read like a neutral analysis to me. On the other hand the UK will mostly continue to support GDPR, in the same way all our phones will be USB-C, EU legislation leaks across borders to every country on the planet. The UK government have been hopelessly out of their depth legislating the internet, since, forever. The site is called "webdevlaw.uk" and the article footer "This is my personal site, and the opinions on it do not reflect the views of any current or previous employer." seems a bit dishonest, but everywhere does it these days (putting "news" at the end of your twitter handle somehow makes you a journalist apparently).

bodge5000 4y ago
> The UK government have been hopelessly out of their depth legislating the internet, since, forever. This is both the good and the bad of this legislation. Bad, for obvious reasons, but good because usually they're so unbelievably out of their depth that it never actually comes to pass. We're now, what, 5 years is it delayed on a bill that was supposed to require an ID for adult websites? I remember it started up before May was in power and still nothing has been done about it, and that was far less "ambitious" than this.
- DrBazza 4y ago
  Agreed. I don't really understand the UK government. Though it's probably the same elsewhere, career politicians schooled in humanities at university, completely clueless about the ministerial role they've been given.
  - mmarq 4y ago
    > I don't really understand the UK government. They need some crazy headlines to try to win the next by elections. When the pensioners will realise that they have to identify themselves to watch porn, the bill will be retracted.
  - rswail 4y ago
    It's like the republicans on abortion, the last thing they want is to actually pass any legislation, because then they'll have lost an issue that they can use to rile up the dumbest side of their supporters, combining the best of "won't someone think of the children", and "omg, genitalia in motion is much more evil than violence", and "if we do this right, we'll have a perfect panopticon to catch out the others out there that you don't like".
GordonS 4y ago
The article is one-sided... but are there honestly any good arguments in favour?
- Silhouette 4y ago
  The trouble with these issues is that there is always a legitimate argument in their favour. There really are some nasty people in the world and some of them really do prey on children and there really is a lot of content on the Internet that isn't suitable for children and real children sometimes do suffer real harm because of these things. The question we should be asking is how much that we value for other good reasons we are willing to give up in exchange for the possibility of improving the protection of our children, when there is no crystal ball that tells us either how much of an improvement any given measure would actually make or how much of the potential harm from giving something else up would actually be realised. Until we view these kinds of rights and protections issues as a balancing act with legitimate arguments on both sides but also genuine concerns from both sides it's impossible to even have an intelligent debate on the ethics, never mind write good laws with all the extra practical concerns that legislation and enforcement introduce.
  - GordonS 4y ago
    I do understand the government's argument, but: 1. I don't believe children will really be "saved" from viewing/reading harmful content - if they really want to see something, they will simply find a way around it, but also remember this is a *UK-only* thing! 2. I don't believe for a second that the security apparatus won't have unchecked access to the data
    - Silhouette 4y ago
      I suspect you and I (and probably most people on HN) have similar views on these issues. We skew liberal and we skew technically literate. My point is that "normal" people don't necessarily perceive the same dangers that we do in measures like the ones proposed here. On the other hand "making our children safer online" is something any decent person can get behind as long as you conveniently ignore all the nuance and practical details. Given who the government here currently are it's hardly surprising that they resort to attention-grabbing soundbites. With a bit of luck the Tories will boot Boris before too long and that'll take many of his current Cabinet out of the picture as well since they were seemingly chosen more for their expected loyalty to Boris than any particular expertise or competence. Then at the very least there is a mini-reset in government and some of the more headline-grabbing but questionable policies of the Johnson administration might be quietly sidelined while whoever takes over desperately tries to steady the ship before the next general election. Although of course they quietly passed legislation earlier this year that pushed the latest possible date for that election all the way back to January 2025...
Hizonner 4y ago
Nobody who has an actual opinion will sound neutral, unless they're actively trying to mislead you. Everybody who is actually an expert will have an opinion. Therefore almost anything that "reads like a neutral analysis" will be worthless drivel. If you want such drivel, it's available in unlimited quantities from various press outlets. Of course, they're not "neutral", either, but they buy their biases wholesale rather than actually doing that whole tedious "understand the issue" thing. And some opinions are right, while other opinions are wrong. Reality is not "neutral".

bodge5000 4y ago

> The UK government have been hopelessly out of their depth legislating the internet, since, forever. This is both the good and the bad of this legislation. Bad, for obvious reasons, but good because usually they're so unbelievably out of their depth that it never actually comes to pass. We're now, what, 5 years is it delayed on a bill that was supposed to require an ID for adult websites? I remember it started up before May was in power and still nothing has been done about it, and that was far less "ambitious" than this.

DrBazza 4y ago
Agreed. I don't really understand the UK government. Though it's probably the same elsewhere, career politicians schooled in humanities at university, completely clueless about the ministerial role they've been given.
- mmarq 4y ago
  > I don't really understand the UK government. They need some crazy headlines to try to win the next by elections. When the pensioners will realise that they have to identify themselves to watch porn, the bill will be retracted.
- rswail 4y ago
  It's like the republicans on abortion, the last thing they want is to actually pass any legislation, because then they'll have lost an issue that they can use to rile up the dumbest side of their supporters, combining the best of "won't someone think of the children", and "omg, genitalia in motion is much more evil than violence", and "if we do this right, we'll have a perfect panopticon to catch out the others out there that you don't like".

GordonS 4y ago

The article is one-sided... but are there honestly any good arguments in favour?

Silhouette 4y ago
The trouble with these issues is that there is always a legitimate argument in their favour. There really are some nasty people in the world and some of them really do prey on children and there really is a lot of content on the Internet that isn't suitable for children and real children sometimes do suffer real harm because of these things. The question we should be asking is how much that we value for other good reasons we are willing to give up in exchange for the possibility of improving the protection of our children, when there is no crystal ball that tells us either how much of an improvement any given measure would actually make or how much of the potential harm from giving something else up would actually be realised. Until we view these kinds of rights and protections issues as a balancing act with legitimate arguments on both sides but also genuine concerns from both sides it's impossible to even have an intelligent debate on the ethics, never mind write good laws with all the extra practical concerns that legislation and enforcement introduce.
- GordonS 4y ago
  I do understand the government's argument, but: 1. I don't believe children will really be "saved" from viewing/reading harmful content - if they really want to see something, they will simply find a way around it, but also remember this is a *UK-only* thing! 2. I don't believe for a second that the security apparatus won't have unchecked access to the data
  - Silhouette 4y ago
    I suspect you and I (and probably most people on HN) have similar views on these issues. We skew liberal and we skew technically literate. My point is that "normal" people don't necessarily perceive the same dangers that we do in measures like the ones proposed here. On the other hand "making our children safer online" is something any decent person can get behind as long as you conveniently ignore all the nuance and practical details. Given who the government here currently are it's hardly surprising that they resort to attention-grabbing soundbites. With a bit of luck the Tories will boot Boris before too long and that'll take many of his current Cabinet out of the picture as well since they were seemingly chosen more for their expected loyalty to Boris than any particular expertise or competence. Then at the very least there is a mini-reset in government and some of the more headline-grabbing but questionable policies of the Johnson administration might be quietly sidelined while whoever takes over desperately tries to steady the ship before the next general election. Although of course they quietly passed legislation earlier this year that pushed the latest possible date for that election all the way back to January 2025...

Hizonner 4y ago

Nobody who has an actual opinion will sound neutral, unless they're actively trying to mislead you. Everybody who is actually an expert will have an opinion. Therefore almost anything that "reads like a neutral analysis" will be worthless drivel. If you want such drivel, it's available in unlimited quantities from various press outlets. Of course, they're not "neutral", either, but they buy their biases wholesale rather than actually doing that whole tedious "understand the issue" thing. And some opinions are right, while other opinions are wrong. Reality is not "neutral".