| ▲ | perihelions 3 days ago |
| As a remark, not a criticism, such a deliberate promotion is probably illegal in the UK market, > "But Ofcom says platforms required to introduce "highly effective" methods to check user age must not host, share or permit content that encourages use of VPNs to get around age checks. The government has also told the BBC it would be illegal for platforms to do so." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn72ydj70g5o |
|
| ▲ | MistahKoala 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| NextDNS isn't a content platform required to have age checks, so no, that prohibition doesn't apply here and promoting the bypass feature isn't 'probably illegal'. |
| |
| ▲ | aydyn 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "Illegal" is only what the government will go after you for, and I very much doubt ofcom will see it your way. | |
| ▲ | riedel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But HN might be Ofcoms next target now I guess, giving all the comments and post an circumvention... |
|
|
| ▲ | graemep 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That only applies to those platforms that are required to do "highly effective age checks". i.e. the top category of "harmful" site cannot point people to VPNs as a way to avoid age verification. Everyone else can tell people about VPNs as a way to avoid age verification. The media have been doing so for a start. |
|
| ▲ | petcat 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > must not host, share or permit content that encourages use of VPNs to get around age checks. The government has also told the BBC it would be illegal for platforms to do so Holy. Crap. I knew the UK was going off the deep end with these laws, but this actually looks like China-level government reach. |
| |
| ▲ | Ms-J 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Ignore the government crying. It is irrelevant when we spread the tech to get around their useless spying laws. | |
| ▲ | pas 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | next step is to try to make VPNs illegal (or require age verification for them, of course) | | |
| ▲ | zarzavat 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You need to introduce an invasive great firewall before you can effectively ban VPNs, since there's so many different ways to hide traffic. Unlike banning porn, banning VPNs has no political value because the technically inept voters who support these age verification policies don't know what a VPN is. | | |
| ▲ | miki123211 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > You need to introduce an invasive great firewall before you can effectively ban VPNs If you're China, yes. If you're a large and powerful western country, not so much. The way to do it would be through the concept of "data laundering." Just like the US does with money laundering, the government would publish a list of all organizations and individuals engaged in the practice. All companies operating in that country would need to (globally) sever all ties with everybody who is on the list. Everybody else could choose between doing the same or ending up on the list themselves. Only powerful countries could do this effectively, less powerful ones would just isolate themselves, just like China did. The US could definitely do it. The EU, UK, Japan and maybe India probably could, but it would be dicy. Everybody else would fail spectacularly. | | |
| ▲ | zarzavat 3 days ago | parent [-] | | UK prisons are almost full. The last thing the government needs is to jail every 14 year old who sets up wireguard for his friends. |
|
| |
| ▲ | RiverCrochet 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Age verification for VPNs would be awesome. I would rather hand ID over to a VPN provider than individual sites I visit. | | |
| ▲ | tacticus 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This would ensure you couldn't tie an Identity to an activity\user on a service which is of course why it's not where they're going | |
| ▲ | lttlrck 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The VPN provider should hook into the existing government identify service. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | walterbell 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can VPN/DNS providers independently market their services, if content providers cannot advertise VPN providers? |
| |
| ▲ | perihelions 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > "content that encourages use of VPNs to get around age checks" I think "...to get around age checks" is controlling. It isn't illegal to promote VPN's in that country; it's illegal to promote their usefulness in circumventing other laws. | | |
| ▲ | neilcj 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The law reads like it applies to platforms required to do the checks rather than third party service providers. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | buyucu 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For people who don't live in the UK, why should they care about UK law? |
| |
| ▲ | ac29 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | NextDNS is a company not a person. The have infrastructure in the UK and presumably have UK customers, so they should care about UK law. | | |
| ▲ | retype 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The US also has multiple states that have enacted similar laws. |
| |
| ▲ | calgoo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because the tech that is being implemented for the UK will now be available for any other country on request. Its one thing to try to force the companies to implement the solutions, its another to get your country added to the config of said implementation. | |
| ▲ | jansper39 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because it's becoming the standard everywhere. |
|
|
| ▲ | rendaw 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Under no circumstances should you use Mullvad VPN (https://mullvad.net/en), available for 5Eur/mo - also payable in Bitcoin, to avoid our age verification checks!" |
|
| ▲ | thrown-0825 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
