10 ms·
The UK's Controversial Online Safety Act Is Now Law
- anticensor 3y agoI love how Matrix and Arathorn are discreetly mentioned in the story.
- Arathorn 3y agoI'm not sure it's a win to be mentioned, given I failed to successfully raise the alarm over the impact of the OSB. All very frustrating and depressing.
- gavinhoward 3y agoYou were partially successful; because of you, I saw this coming. I set up a Matrix homeserver for comms between me and my wife semi-recently. Thank you.
- mdp2021 3y agoOne of the first (among many dramatically) critical issues is: > Companies, from Big Tech down to smaller platforms and messaging apps, will need to comply with a long list of new requirements, starting with age verification for their users. (Wikipedia, the eighth-most-visited website in the UK, has said it won’t be able to comply with the rule because it violates the Wikimedia Foundation’s principles on collecting data about its users.) How would one verify age without checking personal identity. (And who would use a service which involves identification.)
- kleiba 3y agoAnd what kind of verification would a site like Wikipedia even need? Does it need to classify all articles with respect to a minimum reader age? Or generally allow all contents only for visitors that are over 18? Or what?
- ben_w 3y agoAs I recall, Wikipedia insisted on HTTPS for all access well before it was fashionable precisely so that governments couldn't decide which knowledge was OK and which was forbidden (and hence the whole site used to get regularly blocked by China because of e.g. the Tiananmen Square article). It doesn't take much effort to find things the British establishment won't want kids seeing even though kids talk about them in school playgrounds (or at least we did when I was last in a school a bit over 23 years ago). For example, I was given a summary of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre by some girl in the same class as me when I was 8 or 9. And even as an adult, you really don't want to see a real photograph of a newborn with anencephaly, which Wikipedia did have when I was first looking up the condition. The point of Wikipedia — that it can be edited at any time — absolutely makes it impossible to survive any age rating system other than "adults only".
- contravariant 3y agoI mean this is a very good argument, so what I'm about to say is not much of a counterargument and more of a feeling. But fuck that shit. Sure some information is unpleasant (and frankly an image-free wikipedia would be very convenient for some queries), but trying to prevent this with age restrictions is just not the way to go. Trying to prevent this from reaching the school playground is like restricting kids to keep them from scraping their knee, it's futile and likely more harmful than beneficial.
- ben_w 3y agoI kinda agree with your vibes, though only kinda. Our world is a big complex mess and people have uglier souls than I'd like; the transition from innocent childhood to the adult realisation of this should be… kind and sympathetic, not just the equivalent of throwing someone in the deep end of a pool to teach them to swim.
- Arch-TK 3y ago>like restricting kids to keep them from scraping their knee Extremely on-brand for the UK.
- aklju90709 3y agoThey plan to have 3rd party companies that do verification. Of course this will be a privacy disaster and likely intentionally so. The Tories are obsessed with weakening privacy and data protection laws. It's part pro-business/anti-consumer ideology, part dislike of the EU and its goals and a large dash of corruption. See for example giving away NHS data to Palantir, a company literally funded by the CIA.
- red_admiral 3y ago> The Tories are obsessed with weakening privacy and data protection laws True, but from the quoted article: > I'm not sure I've seen anything by way of potential legislation that's had as broadly based a political consensus behind it. I'm afraid I don't expect anything to change if Labour win the next general election.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- xethos 3y agoI'm not saying you're wrong and Labour will change anything, but those quotes refer to different versions of the bill. Your second quote is for the initial draft, from 2019, while the first refers to the revised, recently passed, bill (among other things).
- LelouBil 3y agoThat makes me think about the app that starting to get publicly available in France. France Identité, that allows you to use NFC to communicate with your ID and generate a single use, verifiable proof of identity, as well as having a valid digital ID on your phone you can present to the authorities. I assume it will also be possible to provide a single use proof of age without revealing identity with this kind of system. I do not get at all why 3rd party companies would be allowed to do something like this. If I need a way to give a digital proof of something like this, I'd much rather have my government handle it.
- 3y ago
- api 3y agoUnclear to me is whether this would apply to peer to peer apps like Nostr or non-profit federated systems like Mastodon or Matrix. None of these have coherent entities behind them. Also looks like the UK is about as bad a place to host something as mainland China.
- aziaziazi 3y ago“age verification” modalities does not seems to be expressed, so a simple “confirm your age” à la porn websites may suffice?
- didntcheck 3y agoIt should be possible to have a third party IdP provide the site with a trustworthy claim that the user is an adult without any more information, shouldn't it? I think people are a little too quick to claim victory because something is "technically impossible" when it actually isn't (efficacy of public sector IT projects notwithstanding)
- empyrrhicist 3y agoBut if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway.
- throwaway290 3y agoWikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine
- CamperBob2 3y agoDonations are voluntary.
- throwaway290 3y agoSo is your use of Wikipedia. Your point?
- mdp2021 3y agoThe contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. When you finance the source you relatively openly promote the source. The two activities are dissimilar.
- throwaway290 3y ago> The contextual critical matter in accessing information is that you do it in privacy. Since when, in human history, was this an implicit critical assumption in anyone's mind? > The two activities are dissimilar. Yes they are different activities. The point is still: Wikipedia doesn't worry about integrating with systems that require you to be identified. (Actually, internet is another such system, you can't use it without providing some form of ID in probably most countries.)
- throwaway290 3y ago> How would one verify age without checking personal identity. Just like one can auth without checking password. Ever heard of OAuth?
- mratsim 3y agoUnless you use zero-knowlege proofs, there is always a 3rd party that needs to guarantee they checked your identity.
- throwaway290 3y agoApp requests that you are of age. You are redirected to gov site, you log in to gov site, gov site tells app true or false. No one knows your age, no one checks your ID, besides the gov site which anyway knows your age because they issued your ID. This is basic OAuth. What's the problem again?
- Ographer 3y agoSo now the government gets to gatekeep every website deemed controversial? That's quite the slippery slope.
- throwaway290 3y agoTrue, but gov site doesn't have to be informed which site is asking whether you are of age or not. The problem as I see it is not about government gatekeeping stuff (they already can do it if they want and we can already bypass it if we want, like literally nothing will change) but that third-party sites that profile users can now also add "of age" to fingerprints.
- headsman771 3y agoNow gov site has a list of every website you've looked at.
- ilkke 3y agoHere's hoping that the resulting dumpster fire will at least serve as a deterrent to others.
- ekianjo 3y agojust block all visitors from the UK. See how long their stupid law lasts.
- rwmj 3y agoA lot longer than you think. However, yes, blocking is a good idea. It trains users to bypass the block using VPNs etc. In your block message, make it very clear (a) exactly why the site is blocked, (b) what legal routes people can take (petition their MP etc), and (c) how to get around the block by technical means.
- WithinReason 3y agoThis will just lead to VPNs being outlawed
- mdp2021 3y agoYes, but the problem is with this practice spreading to more legislations.
- ko27 3y agoAll the responses you are getting are very US centric. Just to give an example how you could do this in the EU, today. Every country is now issuing (or planning to issue soon) electronic ID cards with digital signatures that can be scanned with your smartphone. The plan is to allow users to attest they are over or under 18 without revealing any other personal information. They will release an official EU app (like they did for Covid) or Google/Apple will add the appropriate secure API. I don't necessarily agree we need this, but to claim it's impossible to do this in a secure way is ridiculous.
- mdp2021 3y agoPractically, I am not sure about the feasibility. You request a one-time-certificate with a smartphone, then copy it on a laptop (already this is not automatic): once per website or page? That is a lot of certification requests. And that would be to access the content in the www? It creates a dependency stronger than DNS. And there should be full warranty that the issuer and the receiver cannot cross information (of the issued and the received - that would identify the user). Plus, not everybody has a smartphone. Not everyone accepts Android or iOS at their current implementations. Do those people remain without access to the www?
- ko27 3y ago> Practically, I am not sure about the feasibility. Last week I logged into my e-gov website by confirming a push notification on my authenticator app that's tied to my e-ID card to download my birth certificate. No copy pasting needed. Random websites now even support logging in without passwords by using your smartphone passkeys. I am sure they can make it work for a simple yes/no (over 18) challenge-request scenario. > Plus, not everybody has a smartphone. Not everyone accepts Android or iOS at their current implementations. Do those people remain without access to the www? We are talking about adult content. The alternative is having that content banned. Many democratic countries have already done that, like South Korea. I don't prefer this scenario.
- dvdkon 3y ago
- lost_tourist 3y agoSo how would an American company who doesn't want to comply with this handle it? Simply block all incoming UK IP addresses? I wonder if there is any chance that British courts would say this goes against basic human rights. I have no idea if there is a "set" of basic rights like the Amendments in the US Constitution.
- throw_a_grenade 3y agohttps://archive.ph/ZyGo8 https://archive.ph/ZyGo8
- RyEgswuCsn 3y agoIs it just me or the UK has been losing its moral highground over the years?
- mjhay 3y agoThat ship sailed a few hundred years ago.
- petesergeant 3y ago> losing its moral highground over the years Ever since about 1215, I'd say
- cutemonster 3y agoWhat happened 1215? Wikipedia lists many events
- petesergeant 3y agoMagna Carta is signed, which John Lackland almost immediately goes back on
- cutemonster 3y agoThanks! But Magna Carta looks like a good thing? Although it was a failure, it's not as if things were any better before?
- petesergeant 3y agoIt was indeed, which is why it was the high-point, and it's all been down-hill from there :-)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- heresie-dabord 3y ago
- didntcheck 3y agoIt's concerning how much of the "opposition" are only upset that this bill doesn't restrict freedom of espression enough. Including the author of this article, it seems, including the obligatory claim that disagreeing with one's personally preferred form of urban planning is a "far-right conspiracy theory" An easy test the sanity of measures to combat "misinformation" is to mentally replace that term with "fake news"
- mdp2021 3y ago> Including the author of this article, it seems, including the obligatory claim that disagreeing with one's personally preferred form of urban planning is a "far-right conspiracy theory" Sorry could you point to the referenced passage?
- Amezarak 3y agoThe GP is probably referring to this: > After the worst of the pandemic was over, those same falsehoods fed into other conspiracy theories that continue to disrupt society. The original white paper that was the bill’s foundation included proposals for compelling platforms to tackle this kind of content—which individually might not be illegal but which en masse creates dangers. That’s not in the final legislation, although the act does create a new offense of “false communications,” criminalizing deliberately causing harm by communicating something the sender knows to be untrue. [...] The act includes strict rules forcing platforms to move swiftly to remove any illegal post—such as terrorist content or child sexual abuse material—but not on disinformation campaigns comprised of a drip-drip of misleading content, failing to understand that “when that turns into things going viral and spreading, then the harm can occur cumulatively.” In the article, "other conspiracy theories" is a link to an article discussing people who oppose 15-minute cities, apparently because they regard that level of city planning as excessively authoritarian. It definitely seems to be true that the "opposition" here is complaining this bill did not yet give the government remit to ban "misinformation" and "disinformation", which is indeed depressing. I often wonder whether most such people really believe broad categories like this, which historically encompass everything from legitimately insane conspiracy theories to true facts about the world that the ruling class finds annoying, are something the government should be cracking down on...are they not aware "public order" is the excuse every regime has used to suppress speech?
- tempodox 3y agoThis wipes out any doubt as to whether the UK has joined the Dark Side.
- fredgrott 3y agoSo how does one verify age.... 1. Ask for a credit card number... Yeah, first hole through this is that all children can get a gift card credit card even if the child is below the majority contract age and that does indeed transform to a real credit card. 2. Ask for state IDs... Similar problems, as most covert state agencies rely upon holes in state ID systems for stage craft purposes. An easier solution would be to lock out government users from ] accessing all these sites....has the added bonus of really identifying the children in this conversation about identity and equal access to knowledge.
- finite_depth 3y ago[dead]
- naveen99 3y agoSo now you can walk around in the townsquare without identification but not on a web browser ? It should probably be the opposite to start with, atleast in places with historically disputed territory among religions.
- dp-hackernews 3y agoAnd what about a public library, should they also require identification and proof of age? How about a playground or park, should you be a certain age to use one, do you need to prove identity to do so also? Censorship by way of restriction of resources. A cheap shot that will cost dearly in many ways, and far into the future - perhaps this is the kind of bill that guarantees an explosion of revolt in the future. John Carpenter's "They Live" anyone?
- naveen99 3y agoThe issue will be once we have independent robots with ai, would they be allowed without identification? For the internet the issue is almost here now.
- egorfine 3y agoGiven the fact that parts of this law are impossible to follow, I have no idea how is this thing going to actually influence real life.
- gonzo41 3y agoIn Australia, we had Malcolm Turnbul say with a smug smile on his face “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”. This was about Australia wanting to limit encryption on the Internet. Politicians who don't consult experts and listen to their advice make fools of themselves. But sadly the consequences of poor laws is that real people will get minced up by ill informed regulation and enforcement programs.
- justinclift 3y agoIf you watch the video of it being said, it was a flippant reply to a smartarse question. Trying to portray it as a serious response is pretty dishonest. :/
- mratsim 3y agoTaxes not going where they have the most impact, and lawyers extracting money from the system.
- lozenge 3y agoIt's there as a threat. "Make changes we specify to your products, otherwise we will use our new powers under the Online Safety Act to require you to perform impossible feats." If they ever actually invoke the new powers, it will mean the bill has failed.
- corobo 3y agoHow are you even supposed to implement this? They only seem to mention that technologies exist... what technologies? Can I pop up a porn modal asking if the user is over 18? Do I need to pay for some third party to handle ID scanning (who will definitely be breached within 10 years, even if I could afford it)? Do I have to process and store more PII than I ever wanted to? Honestly despite being from and in the UK I might just start blocking UK users lmao. Dumbass law.
- nyokodo 3y ago> How are you even supposed to implement this? Lawmakers rarely specify the how. That is left up to the interpretation of companies, regulators, and courts. When sensible, this is a hedge against technological change, but obviously it can be and is abused to create atmospheres of fear for the risk averse.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ilaksh 3y agoIs there a script or service that makes it easy to block all UK visitors? Possibly showing an explanation about the bill?
- throwoutway 3y agoEasiest way is if you're using a CDN, they usually have features like this. Otherwise, yu need some server-side redirect or JS
- tomxor 3y agoPlease don't do this, there is enough geo-blocking crap going on on the web as it is, it's discriminatory and often inaccurate. This is not international law, so unless you run business in the UK you can just ignore it (and based on your suggestion you are not). Don't punish ordinary people for stuff they have no say in. I also expect this law will be revised or just fizzle out eventually anyway like previous impractical digital "laws" made in the UK.
- justinclift 3y agoThe UK has functional extradition treaties with many other countries though. Why take the chance?
- manonthewall 3y agoSay I run a porn site and a british 14 year old accesses it, and I don't have up these verifications, I just broke the law in the UK and now they can easily extradite me because the US and UK governments are -very- friendly. Seems like a good reason to block UK IP addresses to me...
- josephcsible 3y ago> I just broke the law in the UK and now they can easily extradite me because the US and UK governments are -very- friendly. Wouldn't the double criminality rule protect you, at least as long as the US doesn't pass an equivalent law?
- 3y ago
- transfire 3y agoThe road to a police state is paved in disingenuous good intentions.
- pauldenton 3y agoI'm sure it's The Experts paving the road
- mortallywounded 3y agoOh well--- one more UK law I will completely ignore while building my products and services.
- Nextgrid 3y agoOne thing not really appreciated is how easy it is to ignore the law if you're a company in the UK. GDPR is supposedly law in the UK yet every tech company ignores it with total impunity. Same with consumer fraud/false advertising laws.
- auggierose 3y ago> the act does create a new offense of “false communications,” criminalizing deliberately causing harm by communicating something the sender knows to be untrue Wow. Is this more like China, or more like 1984?
- mdp2021 3y agoSorry but you found and are denouncing the possibly only fair point in the legislation. I dream of heads of state being prosecuted for "false communication [i.e. communicating something the sender knows to be untrue]".
- auggierose 3y agoHow is that a fair point? First, how do you define "untrue", and second "knows", in any meaningful sense? A country like China is in the position to define what "untrue" is, and of course, if it is untrue, then it is not possible that you have a different opinion, so you know by default that it is untrue. So this is just pure and simple censoring. And certainly against free speech.
- mdp2021 3y agoYou are reading it differently from a direct reading: it just means "lying" through an operational definition. "Prime minister (etc.), you called X "Y" even though it seems Y is not the case. Did you knowingly disseminate what you know was not true?" I am pointing to the fact that you can witness the practice of lying quite frequently from quite high chairs. I would not mind those crimes (as always justified under the idea of a "greater good", just like this law) to be assessed.
- almatabata 3y agoHeads of state and members of parliament will never get convicted based on this law. They have the funds and the connections to get an amazing defense in court you as a private citizen would never have access to unless you have enough wealth. Many of them have studied law, they know how to mount a defense and they have the money to last a long trial. This will get used against joe random who cannot mount a proper defense and does not have the same social capital to defend himself.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[Dupe] More discussion earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38044973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38044973
- mdp2021 3y ago> More discussion Good to know. But 90% is about royal powers. > [Dupe] Same topic, not the same article.
- g-b-r 3y agoIt's so sad what Wired has become
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- lamontcg 3y agoHopefully this leads to Wikipedia being banned/blocked in the UK and the government winds up looking as stupid as they are.
- manonthewall 3y agoI mean what choice does wikipedia have other than blocking the UK and still maintain their stated purpose and defense of liberty? .