Internet privacy, security, age restrictions, VPNs and backups

[Samson]

The regulation was never about children Avoiding paywall

First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act. They suggested asking Ofcom to think again and the minister agreed.

Meanwhile, one of Kyle’s junior ministers, Baroness Jones, was sniffing around. She raised the possibility that the act might accidentally start rolling all sorts of websites into the dreaded “category 1”, from Google Maps to eBay. Her intervention seems to have been sufficiently forceful to make “officials consider options” and even to result in a paper in which “options were put forward”. However, officials advised against taking any of them, “because of the risk … of inadvertently creating loopholes”.

The minister was “reluctantly” forced to “recognise that our hands are largely tied by the constraints of the Act” — the act that had been drafted and redrafted and strung along through various changes of minister, in defiance of obvious, red flashing warning lights, by the officials who were, like a kitten playing with a ball of string, now so terribly mortified to find themselves all tied up.

Meanwhile, one of Kyle’s junior ministers, Baroness Jones, was sniffing around. She raised the possibility that the act might accidentally start rolling all sorts of websites into the dreaded “category 1”, from Google Maps to eBay. Her intervention seems to have been sufficiently forceful to make “officials consider options” and even to result in a paper in which “options were put forward”. However, officials advised against taking any of them, “because of the risk … of inadvertently creating loopholes”.

The minister was “reluctantly” forced to “recognise that our hands are largely tied by the constraints of the Act” — the act that had been drafted and redrafted and strung along through various changes of minister, in defiance of obvious, red flashing warning lights, by the officials who were, like a kitten playing with a ball of string, now so terribly mortified to find themselves all tied up.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Sorry, I didn't catch the last two paragraphs, could you repeat them?

 

[Clubber Lang]

"We believe these restrictions harm creative expression." The reaction to the UK's Online Safety Act

Game content is being blocked or hidden behind age gates. But are some companies being heavy-handed in their rush to comply?

www.gamesindustry.biz

"My silly little amateur games are an insignificant casualty in a much greater fire that has obliterated freedom of expression and freedom of thought in the UK,"

 

[Samson]

From Ofcom:

Recommendation: For the government to commit to exploring what measures could be taken to prevent children from using VPNs to circumvent provisions in the Online Safety Act.

This could be achieved by amending the Online Safety Act to bring in an additional provision which would require VPN providers in the UK to put in place Highly Effective Age Assurance to screen underage users and prevent them from accessing pornographic sites.

 

[Clubber Lang]

It's well known they have had thier cross-hairs focused on VPNs as the next target, they are relentless and it's a priority for them.
The Internet Gestapo have made thier next move known and expect the bosses in suits to respond by going above the advised recommendations!

They will be moving quickly.

Dame Rachel told BBC Newsnight: "Of course, we need age verification on VPNs - it's absolutely a loophole that needs closing and that's one of my major recommendations."

They just cant leave it alone and let things be, internet is going to have to come up with some concrete solutions everytime they fire a new enforcement volley.
If not, they will eventually win and get thier way like they usually do.

So Online Safety Act in motion, facial recognition scanners rolled out, an idea of internet Digtal I.D.s being pushed...how long before they are all connected together (and assisted with A.I. at some point) they really have thier heavy dirty boots on everyones neck.

They will be sinking thier teeth into the regulation and control of public use of A.I. next (The A.I. Safety Act?) ., they want that shiny new toy all for them-selves.

-------------------

Almighty UK Govt Vs Apple -

So Americans will be safe from the claws of the British Govt, but it's British subjects and everyone else are not as the unstoppable Uk Govt might return to Apple with new and different terms...

FT

UK has ‘agreed to drop’ demand for access to Apple user data, says US​

The UK has retreated on its controversial demand for Apple to provide a "back door" to encrypted customer data after pressure from the Trump administration, according to US officials, ending a diplomatic row between London and Washington.

Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, told the Financial Times the UK had "agreed to drop" its demand that Apple enable access to "the protected encrypted data of American citizens", a move that the US president had previously likened to Chinese surveillance.

Vice-president JD Vance, who was recently on holiday in the UK, intervened to ensure Britain agreed to withdraw an order that sought to force Apple to break open encrypted data stored in its iCloud system that even the iPhone maker itself is normally unable to access, according to a US official.

"The vice-president negotiated a mutually beneficial understanding that the UK government will withdraw the current back-door order to Apple," the official said.

Vance has previously accused European countries of curtailing free speech and of treating some American companies unfairly. He and Gabbard strongly objected to the UK order, which was issued in January under the UK Investigatory Powers Act, and which has so far been resisted by Apple.

While the UK has agreed to rescind the order, it has yet to be formally withdrawn, a person familiar with the matter said.

Three British officials said the clash with the Trump administration was now resolved, after government representatives met senior US figures including Vance in recent weeks.

One said the issue was "settled", while another described the UK as having "caved" to US pressure. Another UK government official said "we can't and we won't" make Apple break its encryption.

"Over the past few months, I've been working closely with our partners in the UK, alongside President Trump and vice-president Vance, to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected," Gabbard said.

She added in the statement to the FT: "I'm happy to share that the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties."

It was not immediately clear whether Britain would issue a new notice to Apple with different terms to try to avoid implicating US citizens' data.

A person close to the Trump administration argued that would not be faithful to the agreement, saying any back door would weaken protections for US citizens.

The UK's move against Apple ignited the most high-profile clash over encryption in almost a decade. But the circumstances of the notice the UK sent Apple are still shrouded in secrecy, with both sides prevented from discussing the order under British law.

In February Apple withdrew its most secure cloud storage service from the UK, iCloud Advanced Data Protection, saying: "As we have said many times before, we have never built a back door or master key to any of our products or services and we never will."

The company made a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal over the demand and the case is due to be heard early next year. Apple did not comment on Monday.

The UK's deal is a sign of Starmer's desire to minimise tensions with the Trump administration in areas that are of paramount importance to Washington, as he tries to shield Britain from the worst of Trump's tariffs and shore up US support for Ukraine.

The UK Investigatory Powers Act has extraterritorial powers, hypothetically giving British law enforcement the right to access the data of Apple customers anywhere in the world, including in the US.

The law has been called by critics a "snooper's charter" but the government defends it as essential for combating terrorism and child sexual abuse.

The UK Home Office, which has never confirmed nor denied the notice, said its joint security and intelligence arrangements with the US to tackle the most serious threats such as terrorism and child sexual abuse "have long contained safeguards to protect privacy and sovereignty".

The Home Office pointed to a Data Access Agreement between the UK and US, which allows law enforcement agencies to request data held by telecommunications providers in each other's jurisdictions.

The agreement "includes critical safeguards to prevent the UK and US from targeting the data of each other's citizens", it said.

"We will continue to build on those arrangements, and we will also continue to take all actions necessary at the domestic level to keep UK citizens safe," the Home Office added.

UK backs down in Apple privacy row, US says

UK authorities have demanded access to Apple users' protected files when required for investigations.

www.bbc.co.uk

"We have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services, and we never will," it said.

Instead, Apple responded by withdrawing ADP from the UK market, and started a legal process to challenge the order. This was due to be heard at a tribunal in early 2026.

It is not yet clear whether that will continue to go ahead.

Because of the secrecy surrounding the government order, issued under the Investigatory Powers Act, it is not known whether other tech companies have also received a demand.

The messaging platform WhatsApp, used by millions of Brits, says so far it has not.

'Hugely welcome'​

The notice, which neither Apple nor the Home Office has ever confirmed, enraged privacy campaigners, who are now cautiously optimistic about the news.

"If true, this decision is hugely welcome," said Sam Grant from civil rights group Liberty, which along with Privacy International previously launched separate legal action against the UK government.

He told the BBC the creation of a back door to citizens' private data would be a "reckless and potentially unlawful move from the government".

"This would present a huge threat to our personal and national security, especially as we know it'd leave politicians, campaigners and minority groups especially at risk of being targeted," he said.

"As long as this power exists within the Investigatory Powers Act, it remains a risk that any future government might also try to use it to create a back door into other end-to-end encrypted services we all use."

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, voiced similar concerns.

"The UK's powers to attack encryption are still on the law books, and pose a serious risk to user security and protection against criminal abuse of our data," he said.

There is already a legal agreement between the US and UK governments - the Data Access Agreement - which allows both countries to share data for law enforcement purposes.

Always the same old dismissive reply -

"We do not comment on operational matters, including confirming or denying the existence of such notices," a UK government spokesperson said.

 

[Samson]

Here is another solution for web hosts:

 

[danjuno]

Wait? For real?

 

[Senethro]

So who commits an offense in that situation, if a user lies?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Perhaps nobody. Wouldn't that be something.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The UK represents about 1% of global population, about 1% of global land area and about 2% of global GDP.

Its ability to impose regulations on foreign owned operations operating abroad is very limited.

 

[Senethro]

Your comments are extremely sensible. The UK government is not.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If an age qualification is as important as being anonymous, the solution is not difficult.

Start a website dedicated verifying a person's age through a CC or other means.
That site issues one or more unique usernames coded to the age verification database (AVD).
Users then use those logins for sites demanding age verification which checks the AVD and lets them in if appropriate.
Their identity is protected.

It has potential to be a money maker if it can protect its data and get porn sites and governments on board.

Of course this begs the question of whether or not porn should be blocked for those under some age.

 

[Samson]

If an age qualification is as important as being anonymous, the solution is not difficult.

Start a website dedicated verifying a person's age through a CC or other means.
That site issues one or more unique usernames coded to the age verification database (AVD).
Users then use those logins for sites demanding age verification which checks the AVD and lets them in if appropriate.
Their identity is protected.

It has potential to be a money maker if it can protect its data and get porn sites and governments on board.

Of course this begs the question of whether or not porn should be blocked for those under some age.

Some of the problems with this:

You are not anonymous the the AVD.
The AVD knows what sites you get age verified agaisnt.
The sites can identify individuals from repeated uses of the same usernames.
Usernames could be provided to third parties with minimal risk.

The zero knowledge proofs get rid of a couple of those issues, but are still not workable.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Some of the problems with this:

You are not anonymous the the AVD.
The AVD knows what sites you get age verified agaisnt.
The sites can identify individuals from repeated uses of the same usernames.
Usernames could be provided to third parties with minimal risk.

The zero knowledge proofs get rid of a couple of those issues, but are still not workable.

Apple encrypts the personal data it collects and has no access to it. AVD could do the same. Its only job is to verify your age. AVD could retain your name, age verifying data and contact information for billing. All the rest can be made private.

 

[Samson]

Apple encrypts the personal data it collects and has no access to it. AVD could do the same. Its only job is to verify your age. AVD could retain your name, age verifying data and contact information for billing. All the rest can be made private.

A) The E2EE algorithms rely on the users not the service having the keys. There is no equivalent here. B) That is not anonymous.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If an age qualification is as important as being anonymous, the solution is not difficult.

Start a website dedicated verifying a person's age through a CC or other means.
That site issues one or more unique usernames coded to the age verification database (AVD).
Users then use those logins for sites demanding age verification which checks the AVD and lets them in if appropriate.
Their identity is protected.

It has potential to be a money maker if it can protect its data and get porn sites and governments on board.

Of course this begs the question of whether or not porn should be blocked for those under some age.

Isn't this already what's happening?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Isn't this already what's happening?

If it is I am not aware of it. Who is doing it?

 

[banzay13]

Let's see, how ***** case will be resolved, look like some "exceptional" countrys will get some breath here.
***** call for 1st addement, and call were no right to Britain regulate censorship for their customers
[snip]

Moderator Action: If you cannot avoid tripping the auto censor, please rethink what you say. Birdjaguar

 

[Samson]

Mississippi is the latest, and possibly worst example

Bluesky has pulled out of Mississippi 'cos unlike the UK version, where they can farm out the problem to a third party personal data broker, they require Bluesky to collect and store sensitive information from all its users, in addition to the detailed tracking of minors.

This causes all sorts of problems, not least because of the potential for a data leak to be highly damaging to the individuals involved.

We may however find that the US free speech thing still means something:

On July 25, 2025, the Center for Democracy & Technology joined an amicus brief led by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in the Supreme Court, and joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), Student Press Law Center, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and Professor Clay Calvert supporting NetChoice’s request to keep a Mississippi statute requiring age verification for anyone to access social media sites from going into effect pending litigation. The law violates the First Amendment rights of both minors and adults, burdening or entirely blocking their access to constitutionally protected expression on services critically important to the exercise of free expression rights.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

The actual law can be found here:

HB1126 (As Passed the House) - 2024 Regular Session

This is fake news:


Bluesky has pulled out of Mississippi 'cos unlike the UK version, where they can farm out the problem to a third party personal data broker, they require Bluesky to collect and store sensitive information from all its users, in addition to the detailed tracking of minors.

Section 4 requires only that reasonable effort be made to confirm age. Section 5 limits the use of personally identifying information and doesn't prohibit redaction of such information once identity is verified. Section 7 (the penalty) creates a civil rights of action for the parents.

potential for a data leak to be highly damaging to the individuals involved.

Why would the data leak be an issue? I had to verify my identity to bet on sports from my phone and order beer online. I would have to do the same to order cape products or firearms/ammunition.