Prominent backbench MP Sarah Champion launched a campaign against VPNs previously, saying: “My new clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill’s passage, a report on the effect of VPN use on Ofcom’s ability to enforce the requirements under clause 112.

"If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems.” And the Labour Party said there were “gaps” in the bill that needed to be amended.

  • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    The problem is that content filters don’t work all that well in the age of https everywhere. I mean, you can block the pornhub.com domain, that’s fairly straightforward … but what about reddit.com which has porn content but also legitimately non-porn content. Or closer to home: any lemmy instance.

    I think it would be better if politicians stopped pearl clutching and realized that porn perhaps isn’t the worst problem in the world. Tiktok and influencer brainrot, incel and manosphere stuff, rage baiting social media, etc. are all much worse things for the psyche of young people, and they’re doing exactly jack shit about that.

    • ErmahgherdDavid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      They know. The “think of the children” angle is just cover to enrage the tabloid readers and to be used as a straw man against anyone criticisng the law (“you’re a pedophile”). The real purpose is “let’s enumerate the IDs of everyone who uses the internet for anything we don’t like” and “let’s censor anything we don’t like starting with LGBTQ content”

    • arc99@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      That’s a problem is for ISPs and content providers to figure out. I don’t see why the government has to care other than laying out the ground rules - you must offer and implement a parental filter for people who want it for free as part of your service. If ISPs have to do deep packet inspection and proxy certs for protected devices / accounts then that’s what they’ll have to do.

      As far as the government is concerned it’s not their problem. They’ve said what should happen and providing the choice without being assholes to people over 18 who are exercising their rights to use the internet as they see fit.

      • Glog78@digitalcourage.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        @arc99 @SpaceCadet thats basically allowing the Government to force the ISP’s to build a solution which is able to sensor every content. Sorry there is alot of reasons why you should be against it.

        PS: even your deep packet inspection falls short to end 2 end encryption / decryption …

        • arc99@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          Deep packet inspection already happens on encrypted traffic (Fortigate Firewall) so it’s eminently possible for filtering software to do the same.

          • Glog78@digitalcourage.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            @arc99 please inform yourself about end to end encryption and decryption.
            All i say is you haven’t understand what is happening on this firewall and what this firewall can do and what the firewall can’t do.

            • arc99@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 days ago

              I’m intimately aware about what it can and cannot do. And it can intercept and man in the middles any https traffic

              • Glog78@digitalcourage.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 days ago

                @arc99 but end 2 end encryption is not by default https traffic ;) ssh / vpn are protocolls ( end 2 end encryption, decryptio) and this firewall can’t deep inspect while this protocoll can easy tunnel other tunnels.

                • arc99@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  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.

                  • Glog78@digitalcourage.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 days ago

                    @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 …

                    your deep inspection falls short to real end 2 end (copy of a former post in this conversation )

      • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        That’s a problem is for ISPs and content providers to figure out

        No, there are very good technical reasons why this approach can’t work.

        ISPs … deep packet inspection

        There is no deep packet inspection on properly encrypted TLS connections. I know TLS termination and interception and recertifying with custom certificates is a thing, but even if it were feasible to implement this on millions of client computers that you don’t own, it is an absolutely god awful idea for a million reasons and much worse for privacy and security than the age-gate problem you’re trying to work around.

        • arc99@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          Actually it can be done and is being done. Software like Fortigate Firewall can do deep packet inspection on encrypted connections by replacing certs with their own and doing man in the middle inspection. It requires the browser has a root CA cert that trusts the certs issued by the proxy but that’s about it. Filtering software could onboard a new device where the root cert could be installed.

          And if Fortigate can do it then any filtering software can too. e.g. a kid uses their filtered device to go to reddit.com, the filter software substitutes reddit’s cert for their own and proxies the connection. Then it looks at the paths to see if the kid is visiting an innocuous group or an 18+ group. So basic filtering rules could be:

          1. If domain is entirely blocked, just block it.
          2. If domain hosts mixed content, deep packet inspection & block if necessary
          3. If domain is innocuous allow it through

          This is eminently possible for an ISP to implement and do so in a way that it ONLY happens when a user opts into it on a registered device while leaving everything open if they did not opt into it.

          And like I said this is an ISP problem to figure out. The government could have set the rules and walked away. And as a solution it would be far more simple that requiring every website to implement age verification.

          • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            I know how it works, so spare me the explanation. It’s not that as easy as you make it out to be. OS and browser companies are actively fighthing “rogue” root CAs and making it harder and harder to use custom CAs, especially on mobile devices.

            And for good reason, because by accepting a rogue root CA that’s not your own, you’re basically undermining the whole trust system that SSL is based on and surrendering all your online privacy and security to the government and your ISP. Whoever has control over that custom root CA has the keys to your online life.

            Rolling such a system out countrywide is utter madness.

            • arc99@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              You obviously didn’t know how it works if I had to explain it was already possible. And I am not aware of any mobile device that prevents you installing a new root CA.

              And it isn’t “madness”, it’s a completely workable way to offer filtering for people who want it for kids and have no filtering or censorship for anybody else. It is a vastly better option than onerously demanding adults provide their identity to random and potentially adult themed websites where they could be victims of identity theft or extortion