Skip to content

UK households could face VPN 'ban' after use skyrockets following Online Safety Bill

Technology
359 222 8.5k
  • I really do not know what you are saying. I have just told you that Fortigate Firewall can and does do deep packet inspection on https connections. It does so by man in the middle proxying. If one filter / proxy can do it then any other could too. There would be ways for kids to circumvent this, e.g via VPN but that is no different than with age verification.

    @arc99

    I said (picture) your deep inspection falls short to real end 2 end. You said your firewall can break end 2 end ... nope they can't and never will and you exactly said this in your last post too. (Sidenote -> i can gpg a text and post it public even with https .. for 99% it will be giberish and only the person who got the right key material will be able to read it ) ... so using deep package inspection to identify something you want to protect kids from is just a lie ...

    Link Preview Image
  • @arc99

    I said (picture) your deep inspection falls short to real end 2 end. You said your firewall can break end 2 end ... nope they can't and never will and you exactly said this in your last post too. (Sidenote -> i can gpg a text and post it public even with https .. for 99% it will be giberish and only the person who got the right key material will be able to read it ) ... so using deep package inspection to identify something you want to protect kids from is just a lie ...

    Link Preview Image

    I honestly do not know what you are saying. Deep packet inspection through a firewall that does mitm interception demonstrably happens. It is not up for debate.

  • I honestly do not know what you are saying. Deep packet inspection through a firewall that does mitm interception demonstrably happens. It is not up for debate.

    @arc99 you still don't understand end 2 end encryption. Yes man in the middle decryption can be done. First for this to happen you need to accept the certificates of the firewall ( which in terms of a home PC you can't force anyone to do ). Second even if you can encrypt the https packets , you can still put an additional layer on top which only you and the reciever has the keys too.

    To give you an example you can easy write down a base64 encoded binary blob in any text field on a website. If this binary blob has been encrypted before noone will be able to tell what is inside.

    So breaking https is useless if someone really wants to hide informations. So no your deep packet inspection is totally useless in this case besides you know someone did put strange stuff in a text on a website.

  • No. They could put it into a review and quietly shitcan this. It's not particularly popular. They just want to say they're protecting kids.

    They're spineless and Keir is an authoritarian.

    "Oh, i see. You want to help paedophiles do you? Why do you hate children then, hey? Of course keef comes out to help the Jimmy Savile brigade again."

    Congratulations, you just lost the media narrative and now all but one paper is going to write about how all the things that hurt every child in the UK is your fault, for the next 3 years. The whole system is compromised and they're passengers, only a little more engaged than we are.

  • "Oh, i see. You want to help paedophiles do you? Why do you hate children then, hey? Of course keef comes out to help the Jimmy Savile brigade again."

    Congratulations, you just lost the media narrative and now all but one paper is going to write about how all the things that hurt every child in the UK is your fault, for the next 3 years. The whole system is compromised and they're passengers, only a little more engaged than we are.

    Not really the narrative. Reform opposes it and Tories likely will. Only Lib Dems will complain and media ignore them anyway.

    Our media are bad, but not that tabloid.

  • Yeah, businesses will not accept this. Remote work and remote connections rely on VPN for ALL KINDS OF SHIT. If you must adhere to some kinds of government compliance, it is even MANDATED BY THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Explain to me how the hell that is going to just poof and not cause all kinds of problems.

    You don't get it. They will just force VPNs to black list sites. Business users will happily do it because they don't care about porn anyway. Any VPN which doesn't enforce UK laws will be blocked at the ISP level.

  • @arc99 you still don't understand end 2 end encryption. Yes man in the middle decryption can be done. First for this to happen you need to accept the certificates of the firewall ( which in terms of a home PC you can't force anyone to do ). Second even if you can encrypt the https packets , you can still put an additional layer on top which only you and the reciever has the keys too.

    To give you an example you can easy write down a base64 encoded binary blob in any text field on a website. If this binary blob has been encrypted before noone will be able to tell what is inside.

    So breaking https is useless if someone really wants to hide informations. So no your deep packet inspection is totally useless in this case besides you know someone did put strange stuff in a text on a website.

    No, YOU don't understand end to end encryption, and you don't understand browsers. You say you could "write down a base64 encoded binary blob on a website". Yes you could and how do you decrypt it? The asnwer is with a key (asymmetric or symmetric) that the recipient must have in memory of the receiving software - the browser that the filter has already intercepted and compromised. So "moar layers" is not protection since the filter could inject any JS it likes to reveal the inner key and/or conversation. It could do this ad nauseum and the only protection is how determined the filter is.

    But this is also a nonsense argument just on a practical level. The problem is kids connecting to adult websites, or websites with some adult content. The filter doesn't need to do much - either block a domain outright, or do some DPI to determine from the path what part of the website the browser is calling. The government thinks it reasonable that every single website that potentially hosts adult content should capture proof of identity of adults. I contend that really the issue is kids having access to those websites at all, and that proxies can and would be a far more effective way to control the issue without imposing on adults. No solution is perfect, but a filter is a far more effective way than entrusting some random website with personal information. Only this week somebody found an app that was storing ids in a public S3 bucket compromising all those users. Multiply that by hundreds, thousands of websites all needing verification and this will not be the last compromise by any means.

  • No, YOU don't understand end to end encryption, and you don't understand browsers. You say you could "write down a base64 encoded binary blob on a website". Yes you could and how do you decrypt it? The asnwer is with a key (asymmetric or symmetric) that the recipient must have in memory of the receiving software - the browser that the filter has already intercepted and compromised. So "moar layers" is not protection since the filter could inject any JS it likes to reveal the inner key and/or conversation. It could do this ad nauseum and the only protection is how determined the filter is.

    But this is also a nonsense argument just on a practical level. The problem is kids connecting to adult websites, or websites with some adult content. The filter doesn't need to do much - either block a domain outright, or do some DPI to determine from the path what part of the website the browser is calling. The government thinks it reasonable that every single website that potentially hosts adult content should capture proof of identity of adults. I contend that really the issue is kids having access to those websites at all, and that proxies can and would be a far more effective way to control the issue without imposing on adults. No solution is perfect, but a filter is a far more effective way than entrusting some random website with personal information. Only this week somebody found an app that was storing ids in a public S3 bucket compromising all those users. Multiply that by hundreds, thousands of websites all needing verification and this will not be the last compromise by any means.

    @arc99 the same way as you did encrypt it ??? with ggp ?

    ???? the needed certificate are exchanged by for example a matrix / telegram or personal ????

  • Not really the narrative. Reform opposes it and Tories likely will. Only Lib Dems will complain and media ignore them anyway.

    Our media are bad, but not that tabloid.

    Why would the tories oppose thier own bill?

    I don't think you're fully aware of all the factors here.

  • Why would the tories oppose thier own bill?

    I don't think you're fully aware of all the factors here.

    Because they've always railed against the nanny state. Kemi is a dreadful populist. It isn't popular.

    You're simply making excuses for Keir and anyone that disagrees doesn't understand. Copium.

  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Judge briefly pauses 23andMe bankruptcy sale amid California's appeal

    Technology technology
    1
    22 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Microsoft axe another 9000 in continued AI push

    Technology technology
    24
    185 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    312 Aufrufe
    J
    Yeah my friend is dating a Google recruiter and he overhears some absurd offers. Like, a reasonable person could retire on a few years at that salary. I have a hypothesis that rich people are bad at money
  • 161 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    101 Aufrufe
    real_squids@sopuli.xyzR
    Why are you using quotations marks? On a serious note, Google's bloat isn't inherent to android, their stuff is added on top as apps and services.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • In Militarizing Push, Russian School Children To Build Drones

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    263 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    468 Aufrufe
    Z
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
  • 310 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    344 Aufrufe
    S
    Same, especially when searching technical or niche topics. Since there aren't a ton of results specific to the topic, mostly semi-related results will appear in the first page or two of a regular (non-Gemini) Google search, just due to the higher popularity of those webpages compared to the relevant webpages. Even the relevant webpages will have lots of non-relevant or semi-relevant information surrounding the answer I'm looking for. I don't know enough about it to be sure, but Gemini is probably just scraping a handful of websites on the first page, and since most of those are only semi-related, the resulting summary is a classic example of garbage in, garbage out. I also think there's probably something in the code that looks for information that is shared across multiple sources and prioritizing that over something that's only on one particular page (possibly the sole result with the information you need). Then, it phrases the summary as a direct answer to your query, misrepresenting the actual information on the pages they scraped. At least Gemini gives sources, I guess. The thing that gets on my nerves the most is how often I see people quote the summary as proof of something without checking the sources. It was bad before the rollout of Gemini, but at least back then Google was mostly scraping text and presenting it with little modification, along with a direct link to the webpage. Now, it's an LLM generating text phrased as a direct answer to a question (that was also AI-generated from your search query) using AI-summarized data points scraped from multiple webpages. It's obfuscating the source material further, but I also can't help but feel like it exposes a little of the behind-the-scenes fuckery Google has been doing for years before Gemini. How it bastardizes your query by interpreting it into a question, and then prioritizes homogeneous results that agree on the "answer" to your "question". For years they've been doing this to a certain extent, they just didn't share how they interpreted your query.
  • Super Human In Transit - Living

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet