> A pretty interesting feature of ECH is that the server does not need to validate the public name (it MAY) , so clients can use public_name's that middleboxes (read: censors) approve to connect to other websites. I'm trying to get this added to the RustTLS client[1], now might be a good time to pick that back up.

Note that it is exactly this type of thing that makes age verification laws reasonable. You're making it technically impossible for even sophisticated parents to censor things without a non-solution like "don't let kids use a computer until they're 18", so naturally the remaining solution is a legal one to put liability on service operators.

You're still ultimately going to get the censorship when the law catches up in whatever jurisdiction, but you'll also provide opacity for malware (e.g. ad and tracking software) to do its thing.

▲

bnjms 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is exactly reverse of the right idea. If parents need to censor things the solutions are the same as corpos are going to. Put the censors at the device or “mitm” the connection, either actually with a proxy, or maybe with a browser and curated apps - which is again on the device.

▲

AgentK20 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How does ECH make it impossible for parents to control their children's access to computers? Sure they can't block sites at the router level, just like your ISP won't be able to block things at the ISP level, but you (the parent) have physical access to the devices in question, and can install client-side software to filter access to the internet.

The only thing this makes impossible is the laziest, and easiest to bypass method of filtering the internet.

▲

EvanAnderson an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Because there are network operators who have mal-intent increasingly no network operators are permitted to exercise network-level control. A parent who wants to filter the network access in their house is the same as a despotic regime practicing surveillance and censorship on their citizens.

Given that it's pretty much the norm that consumer embedded devices don't respect the owner's wishes network level filtering is the best thing a device owner can do on their own network.

It's a mess.

I'd like to see consumer regulation to force manufacturers to allow owners complete control over their devices. Then we could have client side filtering on the devices we own.

I can't imagine that will happen. I suspect what we'll see, instead, is regulation that further removes owner control of their devices in favor of baking ideas like age or identity verification directly into embedded devices.

Then they'll come for the unrestricted general purpose computers.

▲

JoshTriplett 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

If you have a device you don't trust, don't allow it on your network, or have an isolated network for such devices. Meanwhile, devices are right to not allow MITMing their traffic and to treat that as a security hole, even if a very tiny fraction of their users might want to MITM it to try to do adblocking on a device they don't trust or fully control, rather than to exploit the device and turn it into a botnet.

Along similar lines, a security hole you can use for jailbreaking is also a security hole that could potentially be exploited by malware. As cute as things like "visit this webpage and it'll jailbreak your iPhone" were, it's good that that doesn't work anymore, because that is also a malware vector.

I'd like to see more devices being sold that give the user control, like the newly announced GrapheneOS phones for instance. I look forward to seeing how those are received.

▲

ndriscoll 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

Network segmentation does nothing for the types of attacks these devices perform (e.g. content recognition for upload to their tracking servers, tracking how you navigate their UI, ad delivery). I'm not worried about them spreading worms on my network. The problem is their propensity to exfiltrate data or relay propaganda. The solution to that is a legal one, or barring that, traffic filtering.

	▲	JoshTriplett 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That was my motivation for the "or" (don't allow it on your network, or put it on an isolated network); it depends on your threat model and what the device could do.

▲

ndriscoll an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"Sure, you can use my wifi while you're over. Just enroll in MDM real quick".

As brought up in another thread on the topic, you have things like web browsers embedded in the Spotify app that will happily ignore your policy if you're not doing external filtering.

▲

AgentK20 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Fair point.

I guess it (network-level filtering) just feels like a dragnet solution that reduces privacy and security for the population at large, when a more targeted and cohesive solution like client-side filtering, having all apps that use web browsers funnel into an OS-level check, etc would accomplish the same goals with improved security.

	▲	ndriscoll an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think the population at large generally needs to get over their hangups (actually, maybe they have, and it's just techies). No one in a first world country cares if you visit pornhub just like no one cares if you go to amazon. Your ISP has had the ability to see this since the beginning of the web. It does not matter, but we can also have privacy laws restricting their (and everyone else like application/service vendors) ability to record and share that information. If you really want, you can hide it with a VPN or Tor. As long as not everything is opaque, it's easy to block that traffic if you'd like (so e.g. kids can't use it). In a first world country, this works fine since actually no one cares if you're hiding something, so you don't need to blend in. At a societal level, opaque traffic is allowed. You could have cooperation from everyone to hook into some system (California's solution), which I expect will be a cover for more "we need to block unverified software", or you could allow basic centralized filtering as we've had, and ideally compel commercial OS vendors to make it easy to root and MitM their devices for more effective security.

▲

Bjartr an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

There's nothing technical stopping device manufacturers from making this easy for parents to do. They choose not to.

▲

kstrauser an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My right to access free information, and my global neighbor’s right to read unofficial information without being jailed or killed for it, outweighs your right to let your right use the Internet without supervision.

	▲	ndriscoll an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, and if we want to prioritize your ability to do so despite living in an authoritarian hellhole, those of us in countries that respect their citizens rights will have to put these verification systems in place. It just needs to be understood by technologists building this stuff that this is the tradeoff they're making. And it's likely a temporary win there until the authoritarian regimes mandate local monitoring software and send you to the gulag if they detect opaque traffic.

▲

josefx an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> "don't let kids use a computer until they're 18"

Ideally you would lock them up in a padded room until then. There is a significant amount of shared real world space that isn't supervised and doesn't require any age verification to enter either.

▲

ndriscoll an hour ago | parent [-]

Notably, explicitly adult spaces like bars and porn shops are not among them, and a significant amount of virtual space would also not require age verification for the same reason.

	▲	tialaramex 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Rules vary. In Britain it was completely normal for say 15-year old me to be in a bar - it was illegal to buy booze but not a problem to be there. But when I travelled to Austin aged 19 I couldn't meet adult members of my team in the hotel bar because I wasn't old enough even though by then I was legal to drink, to marry, to go to war and so on in my own country. A little while after that, back in the UK, I drove my young cousin to the seaside. I didn't carry ID - I don't drink and you're not required to carry ID to drive here† so it was never necessary back then, but she did, so I try to buy her booze, they demand ID, I do not have any ID so I can't buy it even though I'm old enough to drink. So, she just orders her own booze, she's under age but they don't ask because she's pretty. † The law here says police are allowed to ask to see a driving license if you're in charge of a vehicle on a public road, but, since you aren't required to carry it they can require you to attend a police station and show documents within a few days. In practice in 2026 police have network access and so they can very easily go from "Jim Smith, NW1A 4DQ" to a photo and confirmation that you're licensed to drive a bus or whatever if you are co-operative.

▲

darig an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]