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.

  • After BlackSuit is taken down, new ransomware group Chaos emerges

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    30 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 66 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    W
    In April, Nigeria asked Google, Microsoft, and Amazon to set concrete deadlines for opening data centers in the country. Nigeria has been making this demand for about four years, but the companies have so far failed to fulfill their promises. Now, Nigeria has set up a working group with the companies to ensure that data is stored within its shores. Just onshoring the data center does not solve the problems. You can't be sure no data travels to the US servers, some data does need to travel to the US servers, and the entire DC is still subject to US software and certificate keychains. It's better, but not good or safe. I need to channel my inner Mike Ehrmantrout to the US tech companies and government: you had a good thing going you stupid son of a bitch. You had everything you needed and it all ran like clockwork. You could have shut your mouth, cooked, and made as much money as you needed, but you just had to blow it up, you and your pride and your ego. Seriously, this is a massive own goal by the US government. This is a massive loss to US hegemony and influence around the world that's never coming back. It has never been easier to build sovereign clouds with off the shelf and open source tooling. The best practices are largely documented, software is commoditized, and there are plenty of qualified people out there these days and governments staring down the barrel of existential risk have finally got the incentive to fund these efforts.
  • 111 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    313 Aufrufe
    O
    Ingesting all the artwork you ever created by obtaining it illegally and feeding it into my plagarism remix machine is theft of your work, because I did not pay for it. Separately, keeping a copy of this work so I can do this repeatedly is also stealing your work. The judge ruled the first was okay but the second was not because the first is "transformative", which sadly means to me that the judge despite best efforts does not understand how a weighted matrix of tokens works and that while they may have some prevention steps in place now, early models showed the tech for what it was as it regurgitated text with only minor differences in word choice here and there. Current models have layers on top to try and prevent this user input, but escaping those safeguards is common, and it's also only masking the fact that the entire model is built off of the theft of other's work.
  • 209 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    108 Aufrufe
    K
    And yet so many people still refusing to switch to Signal, even tho Whatsapp is officially declared unsave by the government.
  • YouTube Will Add an AI Slop Button Thanks to Google’s Veo 3

    Technology technology
    71
    1
    338 Stimmen
    71 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    anunusualrelic@lemmy.worldA
    "One slop please"
  • 127 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    56 Aufrufe
    V
    a subtle edit resolving a duplicate reference in a way that removes displays from the list of parts that must be replaceable by a layperson with basic tools That's fucking significant change, considering probably even more smartphones become ewaste from cracked screens than anything else by a long shot...
  • No, Social Media is Not Porn

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    21 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    40 Aufrufe
    Z
    This feels dystopian and like overreach. But that said, there definitely is some porn on the 4 platforms they cited. It's an excuse sure, but let's also not deny reality.
  • 2 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    111 Aufrufe
    fisch@discuss.tchncs.deF
    If I went to the USA now, they'd probably put me there after looking at my social media activity anyway