@Fonant @oschonrock @PeterSommerlad The people proposing this amendment in the House of Lords are technical illiterates, that's what makes this so dangerous. So it will be interpreted over-broadly and damagingly with inevitable, unpredictable, side-effects.

@Fonant @PeterSommerlad @cstross

I doubt that... Or actually... they prob haven't thought about that sort of useful detail.

But just like when your porn account has been age/verified once, you then just "log in" (or carry some kind jwt in a permanent cookie) for subsequent usage.

And yes, if your kid can get access to your computer and log in as you, then all bets are off.

VPNs will likely be similar?

@cstross @david_chisnall The likelihood of the police taking my computer for forensic examination is zero.

I have plenty of things that I must keep private. So does everyone.

@cstross @Fonant @PeterSommerlad

100% agreed...

The entire bill is totally technically illiterate with all sorts of backfiring fishhooks... embarrasing really.

No idea why Labour feels the need to do this sort of thing.

Worldproof the child, not childproof the world. And parents' responsibility.

@oschonrock @PeterSommerlad @cstross Yes. They can legislate as much as they want to age-verify all VPN users. Mathematics and logic makes this impossible to enforce in any meaningful way, though.

@Uilebheist @cstross "I'm an aging router, and I assume responsibility for any outbound packets these young devices connecting to me may send "

@oschonrock @Fonant @PeterSommerlad Labour has a nasty paternalist/nanny state tradition going back over a century. It's baked in at this point: Labour knows what's best for you, peasant. (So do the Tories, but they approach it differently.)

@cstross @Fonant @PeterSommerlad

Complex subject.

For example, I would be quite pro a complete twitter ban in EU/UK.

Is that "nanny state", or is that recognising that X is deliberately manipulated to be a malignant anti-democratic cancer?

Porn for kids.... TBH, I get less excited about that, and selective blocking is hard/impractical.

@Fonant @cstross @david_chisnall emphasis on yet. When you go through the U.K. border they can seize for inspection all devices you are carrying, no matter your citizenship.

@cstross There's no way they can possibly enforce this for existing VPN users.

@Nicovel0 @cstross @david_chisnall Yeah, but I'm not going to be carrying my desktop computer on foreign trips.

@oschonrock @cstross @PeterSommerlad A ban on Twitter in the EU would also be impossible to enforce.

@cstross @capriciousday Lawyers likewise. Working at home or in a court building, using confidential & legally privileged data on the office server...

@HighlandLawyer @cstross @capriciousday They'll argue that lawyers are over 18 "and why would be a problem to prove that?".
Remember it's the "Labour" party we are talking about.

@Fonant @cstross @PeterSommerlad
Yes, I agree that geoblocking would have many holes (vpns, tor, etc), but that is acceptable in this case, IMO

Because the threat that ban would be trying protect against, is serious damage to Europe's democracies. Democracy is a numbers game by definition. So to eliminate a major source of malignant misinformation for say 90% people who can't be bothered to circumvent the geoblock, would destroy the network effect that is so core to any social network's power.

@cstross @oschonrock @PeterSommerlad We can happily discuss whether age restrictions on "VPN users" is a Good or Bad idea for a law.

My point is that it's impossible to enforce such a law.

It would be as pointless as the Online Safety Act. Well-intentioned, no doubt, but embarrassing when ignored. The 4chan bulletin board has been fined £20,000 and more for breaching the Online Safety Act. Their response has been "we don't care, we're not complying with a UK law, we're not going to pay any fines". The only thing Ofcom can do is to ask UK ISPs to block access to 4chan. They haven't yet, but if they do it'll be easily bypassed by a VPN or TOR.

@Fonant @cstross @PeterSommerlad

I agree that enforcement will be very leaky at best.

Whether that is "enough" depends on the case. In the case of X/twitter (see elsewhere) it might be, because the power of a network is proportional to N^2.

What makes the OSA very very stupid is that it subjects the 90% of the adult public who are using these services (ie porn etc) legally to a massive invasion of privacy with signficant risk of damaging data leaks by dodgy third parties.

@Fonant @david_chisnall @cstross
"We don't need to worry, because the govt will not be able to enforce it" is the counterpart to legislators who say "we don't need to put in detailed definitions & restrictions, because we trust police & prosecutors to use the powers responsibly".
History has proven both are always true until they aren't.

@HighlandLawyer @cstross @capriciousday I don't see anything in the amendment that would apply to a business using e.g. Wireguard to access resources in an internal network. The definition of "relevant VPN service" "means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet". So B2C things only, not corporate VPNs.

@Uilebheist @cstross @capriciousday So clerical staff will be required to use a separate computer system to the fee earners, since some of them may be 16 or 17?

And yes, it is IngSoc we're talking about.