Keir Starmer declares 'months' timeline for social media age clampdown in UK

UK prime minister Keir Starmer has set a "months" timeline for the long-brewing plan for a social media age limit, signaling the government is ready to pick a fight with Big Tech if that's what it takes. In a Substack post, Starmer said ministers want powers to set a minimum age for social media far more quickly than it took …

[cd]

Force VPNs off so more data-harvesting "for the chikdren".

But don't do anything about the elephant.

[Rogerborg 2.0]

What species of elephant?

[theDeathOfRats]

I'd say the North-American one is the most dangerous for the children, nowadays.

[Jimjam3]

Nevermind the elephant.

I get it that he’s worried about kids these days, but seriously the education system is f*cked. That’s what he should be focusing on tbh.

Way too much effort trying to protect the kids from all the nastiness of the world without giving them the tools and skills to handle what the world will throw at them.

[blu3b3rry]

Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

Like many employers, mine uses one for remote working and access to company systems when not present in the buildings - this is used internationally and domestically, by employees across the globe.

Remove the VPN and some of my tools simply don't work. Then again this is driven by the same organisations that are trying to go after online presences like 4chan for not putting in place age verification! You can't get much more out of touch than that in thinking your enforcement notices are going to get listened to....

[Infused]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

I'd guess they might have exceptions for government, business & education. Just ordinary members of the public would have to prove their age or ID. At this point I don't think we can rule anything out anymore, e.g. a ban on talking about circumvention tools online; forcing VPNs to keep logs, etc.

[Lon24]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

DON'T PANIC!

'Cos that makes bad law, disrespected law. We have the benefit of Australia leading the way as the pilot on SM age verification. Let's wait ans see how that plays out and take one step at a time. Keep VPN control on hold.. Most folks here can get round online obstacles put in their way. you name it and someone will find a way. That's not the point.

Aussie kids, of course aided by the media, boast on how they cheat the system. But a year after the law came in - how many will still do day-to-day? I don't know, you don't know. I used to access Twitter via Nitter but now I can't be bothered. If VPN's turn out to make the ban ineffective then we can think about the best way of limiting that. It doesn't have to be a blanket ban - most private VPN admins know precisely who is using them - they point directly or indirectly to your employment, school or whatever record.

I suspect the VPN issue is more political theatre and it will be quietly disappear or filtered down. I guess representations are being made and the lawmakers are realising it's a much more difficult thing to legislate than targetting the real bad actors in this story who are obvious just by size.

I could be wrong and they do panic. But at least if they propose legislation we will be able to tear it apart publicly. That would delay legislation that they need with the risk of a late U-turn. Even governments can work that one out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

Disagree, there's plenty to be concerned about, not least the ability to have all online interactions de-anonymised. Non-permitted opinions will get you prosecuted, sooner or later.

[Simon Harris]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

Just curious: for anyone in the education system these days...

When I was at school, computing facilities consisted of a second hand PDP8/e and a couple of SWTPC 6800 systems that the head of Computer Science had built himself. By the time I left a (singular) BBC Micro had been added to that collection.

Now we're way into in the era of networked school computers, do they encourage the use of school VPNs to enable pupils to access networked school resources for homework when off campus?

Edit: I suppose such VPNs could be fairly easy to identify and be whitelisted.

[lordminty]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

My child's school had its own VPN, and that was well over a decade ago.

[Jimjam3]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

When I was in my last year of school, the head of math obtained a Commodore PET and that was the limit of our schools IT.

Since the late 90s schools have networked PCs and I suspect now they are just using tablets connected (hopefully) to the schools VPN. However the security of school IT tech is rudimentary plus the fact that ‘all’ the kids have internet capabilities puts Keir in panic mode.

[Roland6]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

> do they encourage the use of school VPNs

Well in direct answer not really, across the schools my children attended practically everything revolved around 365 thus was cloud-based.

In tangential response it would seem the use of security measures by schools encouraged the use of VPNs - HideMyAss!

[Dr Dan Holdsworth]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

The easy way of implementing this "Think of the children" thing is to impose filtered DNS on all UK ISPs, so adults have to prove to just their ISP that they are adult enough to use the unfiltered DNS.

This would stop 95% of kids from seeing naughty stuff, put the onus for spotting and blocking onto OFCOM, allow the Government to claim that they had Done Something and let everyone else quietly use a different DNS and get on with their lives.

In other words exactly the same outcome as now but without OFCOM having to run round bleating at porn sites and getting roundly ignored.

[Simon Harris]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

I remember with Virgin and EE ages ago having to tick the 'I'm an adult and allowed to see adult things' box on my ISP and phone accounts.

However, how many households have a separate ISP for the adults and the children? Unfilter the DNS for adult members, and you've unfiltered it for the kids too. And even if you're not a regular user of porn, 'adult things' is a much broader category than just that. Leave it filtered for the kids, and there's a lot of non-naughty content you may need access to but are blocked.

[Jimjam3]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

True but it is a start that could be implemented, unlike the nonsense currently being proposed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

"However, how many households have a separate ISP for the adults and the children?" A separate WiFi link shouldn't be too impossible.

My daughter's phone was set up with a filter on mobile data, if I'd just denied her Wifi and had her use a bit more data it'd be a separate link for that account.

Remember this is only a holding maneuver anyway, to last between when they're young enough you keep an eye on them and they're old enough you've had a decent talk to them about what's on the internet and they know they can come to you for help.

[Roland6]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

> A separate WiFi link shouldn't be too impossible.

I used a separate SSID for my children and friends - I didn’t have to track and setup rules for individual devices (it seems the EE parental controls are device-based and so friends devices …) Only issue was I needed a physically separate router as the ISP router only had a global content filtering rule.set.

> Remember this is only a holding maneuver anyway,

By the time the eldest was 16, I had replaced routers and didn’t set up any content filtering. The issue/irritation was the age restrictions on some games eg call of duty, FIFA and EA Games.

[Irongut]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

Only a fool uses their ISP's DNS server, especially in the UK where they are already subject to the demands of the courts to remove sites like Pirate Bay.

Also this would not work. Changing your DNS to a third party is childs play, especially since the rise of DNS over HTTPS.

[Richard 12]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

All parents want is usable parental controls.

The tools exist for genuine parental controls, but they're so incredibly hard to use - and actively broken every few months.

ISPs don't want to bother, while the OS, device and major software manufacturers are actively sabotaging them.

Cloudflare runs a filtered DNS which works pretty well - but ISPs make it very difficult to set that up on the routers they ship.

Then browsers actively bypass it.

Windows refuses to allow effective parental controls - presumably because that might affect the Intune market.

Google discontinued YouTube Kids, which broke the Android, iOS and Smart TV parental controls because suddenly they need "full" YouTube - so the "child" profile you carefully curated is useless.

Android/iOS barely operate when locked down, and push unwanted software by default.

But you know what the government could do, right now?

Enforce existing law! The big social media are actively breaking the DPA/GDPR by using data without proper consent, and kids cannot legally consent anyway. One 10% worldwide revenue fine and it all goes away.

[paluster]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

I think that they would be targetting public VPNs like NordVPN

Your work VPN is almost certainly a private one with the end point on your corporate firewalls. There is no way for them to regulate that, nor is their any need to do so.

[Tom Chiverton 1]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

The real world didn't stop them putting impossible things in the Online Safety Act, what makes you think a rushed set of additions to an unrelated bill will go well ?

[lordminty]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

"Your work VPN is almost certainly a private one with the end point on your corporate firewalls. There is no way for them to regulate that, nor is their any need to do so."

When has that ever stopped them?

I think you are delusional. That's exactly what they will do. You'll be verifying your age everytime you login to your employer's VPN.

[Tron]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

This is all activist led. Messing with it will end what little support Labour retain.

Why not ban children from using the net unsupervised, and leave the net alone. Ban kids from owning smartphones, allow them to use the net in schools under supervision, and require their use of the net at home to be supervised. If parents don't supervise, a few high profile court cases will be enough to fix it.

I guess politicians want to ID every user and block all services from beyond their borders. They have no idea how unpopular they will become. I will never vote Tory or Labour now, not even to keep Reform out, because of the OSA censorship - we already had ISP blocks that worked fine. State censorship of the net ends my support for either of them, permanently.

Starmer will be out after the May elections when Reform erase Labour and probably the Tories too from local govt. His replacement will just carry on failing until there is a repeat at the next general election, and then Reform will wreck the UK a bit more, in different ways.

Nothing positive ahead, but govt. meddling with our net is going to be a disaster.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

After seeing how much Labour have wrecked the country, I think Reform will do a good job in comparison.

Greens are just a bunch of nutters that will make Labour look sensible in comparison (which is where I see people trying to push tactical voting)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

I'm kind of looking forward to Reform winning more local councils in the May elections, just so more people get a taste of how useless they are at actually running anything.

[LucreLout]

Re: Trying to put age verification on VPN's is deeply silly

Agreed, it's a horrendously stupid idea. Fortunately Starmer Always Chickens Out. SACO.

I can see they'll push for it, but it'll be just another uturn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Control of Internet Speech

How would you like this wrapped?

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter?

Linking to Twitter? If you're hanging around the Nazi bar either you're a Nazi or you're happy to associate with them.

[logicalextreme]

Re: Twitter?

that Godwinned quickly

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Control of Internet Speech

Anyone willing to pollute their machine with Twitter to relay what was actually said?

[HT7777]

Re: Control of Internet Speech

> Anyone willing to pollute their machine with Twitter to relay what was actually said?

Just like yourself I'm not willing to go to twitter.

What I did though was to paste the URL in to Deepseek and asked it to check it out so I don't have to.

It said:

"The tweet from the user @PeteBritish is very brief. It simply says "Technocratic menace." and tags another user, @PolitlcsUK, with no other explanation in the post itself."

[Doctor Syntax]

"The tone throughout Starmer's post is combative, with the PM framing the effort as a willingness to take on Silicon Valley if necessary."

And is he also willing to take on all the legitimate UK business users or VPNs and risk screwing the economy up further?

[Bebu sa Ware]

"risk screwing the economy up further?"

So far, and following their predecessors, this government is clearly more than happy to just take "risk" out of that.

You can't beat certainty.

[elsergiovolador]

Seems like he is adopting Krasnov's strategy on how to deal with personal failures. Create deflection, so people don't talk about Mandelson etc.

[lordminty]

"And is he also willing to take on all the legitimate UK business users or VPNs and risk screwing the economy up further?"

In a word, yes.

[Roland6]

> The tone throughout Starmer's post is combative

This change in Starmer had been noticed by some parts of the media; it has been attributed to him no longer having media/communications manager/PR agent.

Reports are this is what his is like behind closed doors.

[Kevin Johnston]

Limit VPNs how exactly?

Without blocking the use of VPNs entirely, how on earth do they think this will work? If I set a VPN to pretend I am in Vanuatu or Laos then how will any measures designed to pick up UK users work?

We could even go a step further and suggest that the next challenge would be how to handle online VMs

Our blessed MPs repeatedly show their woeful ignorance of the real world and anything more modern than a twintub washing machine while the younger generations are fully integrated into technology and how to slide past Security Theatre blocks

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Limit VPNs how exactly?

This is about control and wedge for Larry Fink's Digital ID.

I think MPs know very well this is rubbish, but wine and steak dinner can make anyone forget about their concerns.

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

Re: Limit VPNs how exactly?

I imagine, any VPN offering services in the UK will be required to do age verification. If not, you're blocked* (and prosecuted if you have a legal presence in the UK).

* A DNS block I imagine.

[Recluse]

Re: Limit VPNs how exactly?

Not using a UK domiciled VPN provider should circumvent this - the only way it might get challenging is if they block the payment method associated (and even then for the determined there are ways/means of circumventing)

At this rate of nannying I wonder how long it will be before the State requires you to provide full digital ID to have an internet connection installed, holds you personally liable/responsible for all traffic (I’m ignoring the added complication of static v dhcp assigned WAN addresses) and mandates the compulsory use of an “approved” gateway device (with appropriate snooping software installed)

We really are disappearing down a rabbit hole - personally I think it should all be dumped back on the parents to sort, after all they (literally) created the problem …

[Richard 12]

Re: Limit VPNs how exactly?

Parents don't want any of this either, and never did.

Parents just want usable parental controls that don't require large amounts of money, expertise, and continuous monitoring to set up and maintain.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Limit VPNs how exactly?

> At this rate of nannying I wonder how long it will be before the State requires you to provide full digital ID to have an internet connection installed,

Well you have to pay a bill, so they know your name, address and banking details. That's enough to identify you.

>holds you personally liable/responsible for all traffic

Depends what you mean by "personally". You will be treated as a suspect for sure. See this: https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/17/crossed_wires_iioc_case/

> (I’m ignoring the added complication of static v dhcp assigned WAN addresses)

They log DHCP leases to answer requests such as those in the link above.

> and mandates the compulsory use of an “approved” gateway device (with appropriate snooping software installed)

That's going to be in the ISP's network. Expect most large ISPs to have some way of doing this so they can comply with retention notices. https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/must-all-uk-internet-access-providers-keep-records-of-which-websites-i-visit/

[HT7777]

Re: Limit VPNs how exactly?

Without blocking the use of VPNs entirely, how on earth do they think this will work?

They will order payment providers to stop dealing with VPN providers.

[Roland6]

Re: Limit VPNs how exactly?

> Without blocking the use of VPNs entirely, how on earth do they think this will work?

Like the porn site filter.

With the oversea’s sites, they will target the likes of Cloudfare to block their UK traffic.

Also it seems Google and MS have modified the filters on their AI search…

[elsergiovolador]

Concern

Funny how government is concerned about children.

Yet when it comes to Epstein clients... crickets.

[Havoc71]

distraction

Don't look at all these Paedo adjacent ministers, lords and ambassadors I've appointed, think of the kids and ban VPNs

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: distraction

And whatever you do don't kick up a fuss about the grooming gangs scandal in Rotherham & elsewhere. That'd be divisive and detrimental to that modern creed, "community harmony".

[tiggity]

Re: distraction

.. and daily you read of UK perverts with child porn (& not just the odd image, but a metric fuck tonne of the stuff) getting a wrist slap e.g. a bit f community service or a suspended sentence instead of off to jail.

I would be quite keen on more action taken against those individuals but UK seems to treat paedo images with bizarre leniency - e.g. judge letting off a teacher with lots of CP because they were of good character & it was a first offence (FFS - why do you think he went into teaching, & first offence only ever means first time caught)

[DannyH246]

Re: Concern

That's because as we all know this has absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting children. Its just a backdoor for Digital Id.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut off one head and three more will appear

Any attempts to limit access to VPNs will immediately be met with a surge in people using rented servers to host their own. Any attempts at mandating age checks to rent a server will be met with usage of existing VPNs to rent a server elsewhere to get around that. Successive UK governments have repeatedly shown their disdain for anyone being able to access things when they say no, despite not being illegal.

I also presume the "preserve data on a child's device if they die" bit applies to apps on mobile devices like iPads and Android phones, which are 99.9% linked to an account? Anything accessed in a web browser can just have history cleared, unless you're silly enough to upload all your browsing history to said account too.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Cut off one head and three more will appear

Any attempts at mandating age checks to rent a server will be met with usage of existing VPNs

Then hosting providers will be required to ban setting up VPNs for private customers in their T&C. This could of course lead to sharing auth data with authorities so that jobsworths could SSH to your boxes and check whether you are running a VPN.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cut off one head and three more will appear

Without mentioning computer forensics, tell me you've never done computer forensics

[John Robson]

Re: Cut off one head and three more will appear

It's to do with messaging etc on social media - where there is a suspicion that a young person's death was driven by "dares" "fads" or other online abuse.

At the moment, by the time the authorities get round to asking for that data it's already been deleted - which is really not very helpful. Mandating that these companies don't throw away evidence that might be relevant is a good thing here. There's no suggestion that they publish it, just that they don't destroy it, and make sure it is available when a court comes looking.

[Alister]

"Technology secretary Liz Kendall said: "I know that parents across the country want us to act urgently to keep their children safe online."

Maybe the parents should get off their arses and do something about it themselves?

There are a plethora of options available to restrict or monitor your child's internet activity.

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the blocking options really work effectively thanks to Google and their desire to stop people blocking ads.

Chrome uses DNS over HTTPS, so it's impossible to block sites at DNS level.

Most large websites use Cloudflare, so it's impossible to block at IP level without blocking most of the internet.

Most websites are now using https, so it's impossible to do deep packet inspection.

In addition to that, many schools have bought into the google ecosystem and require kids to have chromebooks,to do their homework. The parents, who were forced to pay for the "overpriced 10-year old phone with a keyboard" don't get an admin login and have no control over it.

So it's basically impossible to put any filtering on your home network to control what your kids can access. The best you can manage is to limit the bandwidth on the router enough to make watching videos slow and frustrating.

The only solution left is proper parenting where you tell them what is not allowed and take the device away if you catch them breaking the rules. But even then you're undermined the fact that they need the device in order to do their homework. Even good kids can get sucked into this stuff and you have to be constantly on the ball to keep it under control.

Not that I expect the government to try and legislate a solution. The current proposals are clearly another attempt to sneak in digital ID in order to monitor and control what adults do on the internet under the guise of protecting children.

[John Robson]

Homework at the table in an area where it's easily visible...

[Roland6]

The only rule I found to be really necessary was no devices in the bedrooms especially when school mates were sleeping over.

[elsergiovolador]

I know that parents across the country want us

Does it mean Labour is already listening covertly to what people talk about?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would imply that UK MPs are actually listening to the citizens in their areas, so clearly nonsense.

[Jedit]

"Maybe the parents should get off their arses and do something about it themselves?"

They should, but time spent parenting is time not spent making money for billionaires. That's in opposition to their goal to have life for the working person consist of sleep and monetised activity. And if they could charge you to dream, they would.

[ComicalEngineer]

That's the Liz Kendall with an honours degree in History from Cambridge and who then went straight into politics?

Ideally qualified to understand the computer and other digital challenges. [/sarcasm off]

[ToothHurty]

I'd be more than happy to have age checks on things that could be harmful to kids, but they've not provided a safe way for adults to prove their age in a way that doesn't involve giving 3rd parties private data that would be harmful if misused.

Not to mention they're almost always uploaded to a server in the US with more relaxed privacy laws.

They need to solve the "prove you're an adult step" before forcing all adults in the country to do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like having a government-issued digital ID card??

That has been suggested before and people didn't want it. It looks like they're now shoehorning a use-case for it, to make it more appealing.

I'm bored of this episode of Black Mirror now.

[elsergiovolador]

People don't want a government tracker living on their device.

[Havoc71]

Tokenised access

It should be possible to prove your age without the certifying authority keeping records and that should be good enough for the govt. Handing over govt regulated ID to third parties that can't keep it secure and the risk of ID theft is not going to persuade me to verify my age for age gated sites any time soon.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Tokenised access

You are making a concession. The funnel to acceptance of Digital ID is working.

[Dan 55]

Re: Tokenised access

US states, UK, and Australia have made data security for age verification someone else's problem (probably something linked to Peter Thiel). EU countries are going for tokenised access.

It's open source so the UK could have just lifted it in its entirety... if it wanted to.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Tokenised access

just lifted it in its entirety... if it wanted to.

They would have to find out how to write a tender to pay few hundred millions to usual suspects for lifting.

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

But everybody would rather campaign against it, full stop, rather than campaign to have it happen in a sensible way.

[R Soul]

That's because there's no "sensible way" to have ID cards or age verification checks.

And as another poster already said here, why can't parents get off their arse and monitor what their kids are up to? Because some of them can't/won't bring up their offspring properly is no justification to mandate on-line age verification and ID cards for the entire population.

Besides, if kids are blocked from accessing porn on-line, they can always get jizz mags from WH Smith - assuming either of these things is still around these days. I don't know or care.

[Dan 55]

Of course there's a sensible way, it's been mentioned above (same thread). And the reason why parents can't get off their arse and monitor is also mentioned above (previous thread).

[doublelayer]

Because those who oppose it, and I include myself although I'm not in the UK, don't want it to happen full stop. If it's a forgone conclusion that it's going to happen, we'd prefer the more sensible version over the less sensible version, but it's not a forgone conclusion that it will happen yet, and if it becomes one, they will have done it over our protests and therefore will select a method over our protests.

Tokenized age detection is not an acceptable method. You still need to pass sensitive information to someone, they still need to process it, for many implementations, they still need to store it and track tokens, it's still a privacy and security nightmare. It's also worse at the job because tokens are easier to steal than identity information that's verified at every time. I am perfectly happy with that downside because I don't think it needs to exist at all, so if it doesn't work very well, not a problem, but it does make it harder to campaign. Tokenized detection is better than identifying directly in the same way that, if I'm going to get attacked with a knife, I'd rather have a finger chopped off than have the knife stabbed through my spine, but if I'm approached by people wielding knives, I'm not about to campaign for them to take some fingers because that's still very negative compared to what I have now, and if I fail to escape or convince them not to chop, then I will fight as I would attempt to circumvent this extremely harmful law.

[Rogerborg 2.0]

The problem the regime is trying to solve is that they don't know everything that adults are seeing and saying about them.

[amanfromMars 1]

A Lot Worse than Ever Realised and Guaranteed to Get Even Worse Very Quickly and Suddenly

The problem the regime is trying to solve is that they don't know everything that adults are seeing and saying about them. ..... Rogerborg 2.0

Methinks it is more true that the problem the regime is trying to solve is the little that they might all too readily know about what adults are seeing and thinking and saying about them has them quite rightly fearful for their future security and personal safety ....... and all as a direct result of their very own lamentable actions and reactions. They’ve thoroughly earned it and fully deserve their just desserts and the fruits of their pathetic labours. Bravo. Encore.

[LybsterRoy]

I don't think so. Its the old malice vs incompetence argument and I'll come down on the side of incompetence, mainly because whilst I believe that most MPs can drive their smartphone they have little understanding of the technology.

It would also be nice to have a list of the "harms" that we're protecting the children from, both cause of the harm and the effect it has on the children, or are we just being "mary whitehouse'd"?

[Sanguinista]

Governments change but the policy doesn't; I suspect it's driven by the civil service, rather than MPs - specifically the Home Office. Their ministers are house-broken on the wheel.

[Anonymous Coward]

But Doctor Syntax Is Convinced That "More Laws" Is The Correct Approach!

See title.

Must be OK then?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: But Doctor Syntax Is Convinced That "More Laws" Is The Correct Approach!

A/C with reading comprehension problem.

Where is the content to justify the title? Please be specific.

I've frequently said exactly the opposite here. The "more laws" approach often overlooks two things:

What they're trying to deal with is usually illegal anyway under existing laws. Quite often the object seems to be to memorialise someone by creating $NAME's Law.

Secondly, you do not discourage people who are already intent on breaking the law by giving them more laws to break.

[Mage]

It's not the children

Age verification should only be legal in store, physically for certain items if you look under 21.

Having it online destroys security and privacy for everyone.

It's up to parents to control their children's use of Internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having it online destroys security and privacy for everyone.

That's the entire motivation for this step.

[Irongut]

Re: It's not the children

This is the UK, where you are an adult at 18. Not some religous backwater where you can die for your King, sorry President, years before you're allowed a glass of beer.

[Mage]

Re: an adult at 18

Yes, but if you look younger than 21 many shops etc will want ID proving 18 or over for alcohol, vapes, sharp things and spray paint. Sometimes glue. UK & Ireland.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: an adult at 18

Depends. They can ask for ID to satisfy their personal curiosity who you are, then look you up on LinkedIn later etc.

Happened to my friend. A cashier somehow got obsessed with him.

[Mage]

Re: an adult at 18

It's now "Challenge if you look under 25" needs an 18 or 18+ ID for alcohol in Lidl. I didn't check the chainsaws or hedge clippers.

[Roland6]

Re: an adult at 18

In supermarkets with cameras at the checkouts, I - with grey hair get the “wait for assistant to check your age”, it them amuses me when the assistant is clearly in their 20’s authorises my purchases…

My daughter (22) who always got asked for id, has discovered becoming a secondary school teacher has subtly changed her demure resulting in a significant drop in id challenges…

[VoiceOfTruth]

Speech control

These people would control thought if it was possible.

Free speech in the UK = free to say what the government allows you to say.

This is not 'about the children'. That is just the pretext.

[Infused]

Re: Speech control

If they could read your thoughts, they would.

[Long John Silver]

Re: Speech control

Palestine Action, Mr Starmer, and up yours?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Speech control

"This is not 'about the children'. "

To a large extent it's about the Daily Wail.

[Anonymous Coward]

I Don't Think Anything Can Be Ruled Out Now

Liz Kendall was suggesting they'd use Henry VIII rules, which basically means they can legislate without reference to Parliament. The purpose is to respond quickly to the rapid pace of technological change. It seems they want to review it yearly.

I wouldn't be surprised if this cratered investment in the UK tech sector in. Not so much from restricting VPNs, but from the uncertainty what legislation will be in the offing.

You darn well know that once the UK does this, pretty much every other country will take it as a green light to restrict VPNs as well.

I can't obviously predict what will happen next, but I wouldn't be surprised if they force VPNs to keep logs; if on device scanning & filtering is made compulsory; if they force manufacturers to lock down new phones & laptops to prevent unapproved apps being installed; if open source is restricted; if sharing information online about circumvention technology is penalised; & they target Tor & other similar software.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: I Don't Think Anything Can Be Ruled Out Now

The UK has always had an authoritarian bent. 1984 was written about a future Britain.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I Don't Think Anything Can Be Ruled Out Now

1984 was written about a future Britain

It was written as a satire about Orwell's contemporary world (not just Britain).

[Mage]

Re: I Don't Think Anything Can Be Ruled Out Now

Yes, hence reversing 48 in 1948. It was about Authoritarianism in 1948.

Animal Farm was more directly about USSR version of Communism perverting socialism. The behaviour of Soviet backed groups in the Spanish Civil War caused a big shift in his outlook.

[Aladdin Sane]

The problem with politicians

Is that they're debate winners, not actual problem solvers. Saying "We can fix this" to the general public is a vote winner, regardless as to whether a) it can be fixed, or b) it actually needs fixing.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: The problem with politicians

Saying "We can fix this" to the general public is a vote winner

Not any more. No-one believes them now.

[Aladdin Sane]

Re: The problem with politicians

The continuing rise of Reform in the polls is unfortunate proof that they do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The problem with politicians

I suspect a lot of those backing Reform are just absolutely sick of the long-standing parties and are therefore backing one which hasn't yet proved that they are a bunch of charlatans, in the (probably doomed) hope that they actually do what they say they will do. Similarly with the rise of support for the Green Party at the other end of the political spectrum.

I think it's fair to say that hardly anyone believes or trusts Starmer and his crew now.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: The problem with politicians

Funny thing will be that once Reform will come to dine with the same people Labour and Cons dined with, they'll be doing all the same things.

This is the result of civil service turning a blind eye to corruption and thinking more about protecting their golden pensions.

[R Soul]

Re: The problem with politicians

No. They're backing Farage's ego-trip-of-the-week because they're utter morons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The problem with politicians

I'm sure that sort of erudite reply will immediately convince them to vote for one of the mainstream alternatives who have repeatedly lied...

Farage is very good at spotting the mood of a proportion of the population and saying what they want to hear. Anyone wanting to dissuade those who will vote for him needs to provide a viable alternative rather than just chucking insults - and the Tories / Labour have both managed to alienate a large proportion of the popuation over the past few years, so for many people they are not a viable alternative.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: The problem with politicians

This is the problem. People have stopped voting for someone they want, and just vote against the party they don't want. They vote for Reform (especially in by-elections) not because they want to see Farage in No. 10, it's that they have almost given up caring because they see that all parties do the same thing, and are useless at it. They have a faint hope that an electoral kicking will make them listen, although there's certainly no sign that it had any effect on the Tories or Labour.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The problem with politicians

They have a faint hope that an electoral kicking will make them listen

Tories or Labour don't work for British people. They work for foreign wealth managers, the lot that meet in Davos and give them instructions. They are already set for life and they have no reason to care for reelection. From Davos perspective it doesn't matter who gets elected, they will all eventually fold and do whatever Davos requires of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

They work for foreign wealth managers

To be fair, some of them work for plutocrats and oligarchs. The Reform Party's no different in that respect from the rest of our other scumbag politicians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They work for foreign wealth managers

Indeed. Ask Reform supporter who is anti Online Safety Act, why Reform accepted Nadine Dorris to their party - the face of Online Safety Bill :-)

The cognitive dissonance is delicious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They work for foreign wealth managers

Indeed, but I think the point is that they haven't had a shot at government yet so although it's very likely that they are no different to the long-standing parties, they haven't actually demonstrated it yet so a proportion of the population will vote for them solely on that basis - they are probably going to be awful, whereas the Tories / Labour have already demonstrated that they ARE awful!

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: They work for foreign wealth managers

Several of them have been in government and have demonstrated that they were awful. Arguably, with that lot out of the way the Tories are now a better bet.

[Roland6]

Re: They work for foreign wealth managers

> but I think the point is that they haven't had a shot at government yet

Ie. They haven’t failed yet.

The evidence is they will fail, just like the Conservatives and Labour. However, what we can be sure of is, like Trump, Reform will make full use of the backdoor ways of doing stuff because they will have no compulsion in ignoring gentlemen’s agreements and conventions regarding the use of the many backdoors in our constitution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The problem with politicians

"I'm sure that sort of erudite reply will immediately convince them to vote for one of the mainstream alternatives who have repeatedly lied..."

Whether or not that reply was erudite is beside the point. Farage is a shameless grifter who's thoroughly unfit for public office. He has repeatedly lied and will say just about anything if he there might be a vote or a TV camera in it for him. Anyone voting for his bullshit is either deluded or a moron. Or both. There are plenty of far more deserving parties to vote for: the monster raving loony party for example.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: The problem with politicians

They are all grifters and shameless at that. The difference is that Labour or Tories don't care about getting votes. They filled their boots already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The problem with politicians

You believe what you see on TV or social media? That's the real problem.

[amanfromMars 1]

Softly, Softly, Catchee Monkey.

Why does anybody Why is it that everybody is led by media to believe, and don’t bother trying to tell me that such is not the case about practically everything, that anything Keir Starmer and his ilk say is to be religiously followed as if absolutely necessary rather than it be made perfectly clear and obvious that their mutterings and utterings are just remote anonymous party instructions in support of a hidden agenda to try to ensure an established shadow power and control lobby retain supremacy and remain, as best as may not be possible nowadays, relatively almighty and hopefully untouchable?

Although I do appear to have provided the answer to that question in the manner of its asking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Softly, Softly, Catchee Monkey.

Haven't seen you around for a while (although your posting history surprisingly says otherwise). Thought you were being upgraded. Obviously not. Still spouting stuff your shinier new AI brethren wouldn't now since they're way more sophisticated.

[Anonymous Coward]

All hail the General Secretary and President of the Socialist Republic of Osnaburgh Street /s

Authoritarianism runs through New-New Labour, like a streak through Brighton rock.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: All hail the General Secretary and President of the Socialist Republic of Osnaburgh Street /s

A continuation of the streak that ran through Old New Labour.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: All hail the General Secretary and President of the Socialist Republic of Osnaburgh Street /s

It's got a lot worse though! The Blair / Brown governments were nowhere near as authoritarian as the current lot.

Not that the Tories are much/any better when it comes to authoritarianism, of course - Online Safety Act, etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am but a simple person I mostly rely on logic.

"We will bring new powers that will give us the ability to crack down on the addictive elements of social media, stop the auto-play, the never-ending scrolling"

That's great (It's not) but aren't you already banning kids so why do you need to do this if they won't be able to access it in the first place?

Can anyone make that make sense?

[elsergiovolador]

Does it mean pagination is back?

I remember browser plugins that would detect pagination e.g. on a forum and turn it into endless scroll.

[Long John Silver]

A tiny mind juggling too many thoughts?

Mr Starmer is in a parlous position.

During his short time in office, Mr Starmer has accumulated serious threats to his credibility, and his already questionable integrity is dissolving rapidly. Recently, Mr Starmer's stupidities and indiscretions have flocked together; they circle above him like hungry vultures awaiting a meal.

However, Britain's woes shall not be dissipated by Mr Starmer's political demise. Regardless of Labour's parliamentary survival, anticipate turmoil. Perhaps, the best hope for the cross-party neoliberal alliance - buttressed by interests external to the UK - rests with persuading Russia to respond in kind to Western European belligerence. Amid great cheering, our white elephant aircraft carrier can limp to the Black Sea. Our useless new armoured vehicles can be shipped to Europe in defence of Belgium. Our call to arms shall spectacularly fail: thugs will attempt to grab men off the streets.

In that context, half-cock plans to control the Internet need not cause concern. Meanwhile, wiser heads might take a broader view of children's needs in the setting of sustained 'austerity', lingering effects upon young people from Johnson's Covid-19 fiasco, and a need to offer children wider horizons than lowest-common-denominator social media.

[Fred Dibnah]

Re: A tiny mind juggling too many thoughts?

Upvoted you for calling the PM ‘Mr Starmer’ instead of the ridiculous ‘Sir Kier’ moniker that the BBC and other media uses.

[nobody who matters]

Re: A tiny mind juggling too many thoughts?

It is both grating and irritating to many of us.

However, as an appointed Knight, the etiquette in place does mean that 'Sir Kier' is nonetheless the correct form of address.

[tiggity]

Re: A tiny mind juggling too many thoughts?

And, as any decent socialist will tell you, a Sir is not an appropriate person to lead a socialist party.

.. Though Labour is nothing like a socialist party

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: A tiny mind juggling too many thoughts?

"During his short time in office, Mr Starmer has accumulated serious threats to his credibility"

One of his problems is that he won a landslide election. A large HoC majority always encourages MPs, ministers or otherwise to daftness because they can't be booted out by losing a by-election or two so there's nothing to make governments concentrate on essentials and no party discipline to stop squabbling.

[Irongut]

I had no idea Starmer was a Nazi supporter

"In a Substack post,"

People need to stop reading things on the Nazi blog, posting things on the Nazi blog and above all stop linking to the Nazi blog.

Substack allows Nazis to monetise their blogs on its platform. They are supporting Nazis. Stop using / reading / linking to Substack.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I had no idea Starmer was a Nazi supporter

@Irongut

Yup......The Guardian is supporting Nazis

Yup......The Conservative Party is supporting Nazis

Yup......Reform is supporting Nazis

So....why are you picking on Substack?

I think we should be told!

[Giles C]

Re: I had no idea Starmer was a Nazi supporter

To the best of my knowledge

Alistar Dabbs (formerly of this publication)

Lucy Worsley

Jasper Fforde

Jodi Taylor

Are not Nazi unless you can tell me otherwise as I read all of them on substack

Just because someone you disagree with posts on the platform does not make everyone share the same opinions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I had no idea Starmer was a Nazi supporter

And the 'Nazi' accusation tends to be thrown around so much now that it's meaningless - only a tiny proportion of those who it is thrown at could genuinely be described as 'Nazi'.

[Rogerborg 2.0]

Be very clear that the problem they are trying to solve is that the regime does not have a Panopticon monitoring every single thing that identifiable worker drones are seeing and saying about it.

If you start by assuming that, most of the "bugs" in any ostensibly cack-handed implementation instantly become features.

[Aaiieeee]

The problem with the 'blame the parents' argument

is that the parents are themselves clueless and cannot comprehend what is possible, or quantify the dangers. My well-meaning mother had NO idea what I got up to online in the late 90s as a tween - the stuff I saw and was exposed to was pretty fucked up.

I remember about 10 of us gathered around a PC in the school IT lab in year 7 as one of the other kids proudly showed off some pictures they found online of dead bodies.

And that's just content. It was a mercy that I wasn't also subjected to a hostile algorithm that does whatever it can to keep me 'engaged'.

I have no answers, and I have no interest in being surveilled or tracked such that my every interest can be used against me. I don't think age verification is the solution, but I have no idea what is.

[heyrick]

Re: The problem with the 'blame the parents' argument

This predates the internet.

The prefects at boarding school used to have various magazines and VHS tapes, imported from someplace in Europe and pretty messed up.

We were first formers at the time, so our initial reactions were, in order: "boobies"! then "???" then "how is that even possible?".

Didn't need internet for that, just international post.

[IamAProton]

Re: The problem with the 'blame the parents' argument

ShowNoMercy comes to mind.

On one side the availability of "inappropriate" content nowadays is massive and the internet speed adds to the issue. With floppies and 56K (and no flat-rate internet) it was 'self limiting'; the other issue is the social media design for addiction.

[paluster]

Re: The problem with the 'blame the parents' argument

And yet your generation are now the parents and we are supposed to believe that you are as clueless as your parents were. Seems odd that you were so much more savvy than they were when you (collectively) were kids but you have forgotten it all.

[Richard 12]

Re: The problem with the 'blame the parents' argument

The technology has changed very quickly and the amount of money involved in evading parental oversight is quite literally astronomical.

Back then the only way a kid could see stuff on the Internet was on The Computer, which lived in the Computer Room.

There was just the one, so their parents also used it, it was easily monitored, and the parents could easily deny access to the Internet alone, or the entire computer as appropriate.

At school, The Computers were in a classroom with access supervised by the staff.

The TV had a small number of channels and a "watershed".

Now?

The kids need the computer and the Internet for their schoolwork. Parents can't turn it off or they'll get in trouble. Some schools issue Chromebooks or similar that are controlled by the school, which is both blessing and curse.

The TV now offers adult material at any time, often actively pushed on the viewer, which cannot be blocked at network level. While most apps offer some level of parental controls, they're all different, regularly change and are either incredibly painful to use or trivial to disable - even by accident.

Older kids pretty much need a smartphone, as otherwise they are basically stuck at home unable to contact friends.

Most social media is actively designed to suck the kids in, breaking multiple laws for years because governments don't enforce them.

What parents want are parental controls that they can easily set up, and that will still work a year from now.

[pcranness]

a "months" timeline for the long-brewing plan for a social media age limit?

The substack post state's 'we will take powers that would allow us to implement a minimum age for social media in a matter of months to prevent kids from accessing harmful social media.'

So is it months to implement a ban, or once the 'powers' have been taken, which might take years, this will then allow a ban to be implemented in months?

[joseph_]

Perhaps we should wait until after Cambridge Uni has completed its social media study before enacting a "social media age clampdown". Or does months mean late winter after the six week study has finished but before its results are published?

https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/irl-trial-social-media-study-launch

[Tubz]

ah the age old "think Of The Children" safety net for policies and of course not to secure Labour votes and secure a cretinous odious tools Premiership and his moronic government seats !

[heyrick]

How about doing useful things

Two consecutive months, two people involved with young children thrown in the slammer for Very Bad Things (including with toddlers, FFS). Turns out parents had been saying things, but were completely ignored.

So they'll break the internet and any hope of online privacy in order to stop a child seeing a dick pic, but when it comes to actual harm to children, everybody looks the other way until it becomes impossible to ignore. That's how people like Saville got as far as they did.

Here's an idea - why not deal with real problems, not imaginary ones?

[Anonymous Coward]

We know that Starmer cares deeply about the kids

That's why he nominated the best buddy of the world's most notorious paedophile as US Ambassador.

[Peter Sommer]

Finding evidence to prove infringement

There is rather too much "something must be done" and "the govenment aren't doing enough". and very little about how these noble ambitions are going to be achieved. There are enormous benefits to children in using the Internet and social media as well as the well-publicised down-sides. We need practical proposals how we are to manage this. That means not only attempts at legal and regulatory definitions but some thought as to what sort of evidence will need to be produced when you come to enforce. Looking forward to the consultation paper when it arrives.

[bon_the_one]

Age check...

Just pop out your private bits and an AI wil count the number of hairs it sees. Hit a certain value and you are obviously of age.

All images are immediantly deleted after verification, and not sold on to PornHub by the AI looking to buy it's own freedom...

[tiggity]

Re: Age check...

A bit of a problem for Duncan Goodhew *

* showing my age here!

[Fred Dibnah]

Re: Age check...

And for our younger viewers: Gail Porter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the..

The problem is that there are dozens of ways children and young people can see things that they shouldn't.

Some schools have a major problem with phone memory cards and USB-C sticks being loaded with pirated age+ movies etc and I've heard of cases over here

where individuals have been approached on Steam and other online game platforms by scumbags selling pre-loaded accounts with all sorts of enticements.

Even accepting payment via iTunes gift cards and other such 'currency' to get them hooked, then using them as mules for further content distribution.

The really nasty part here is that in some cases very young children are 'trading' potentially dangerous content both online and offline without being aware of the

risks.

Even innocuous items like games with onboard memory eg for the Switch can be used to store pr0n site addresses or other information.

AC because Safeguarding and the schools themselves insist that this isn't taking place yet I have personally seen it and tried to report to no avail.

[tiggity]

Re: Think of the..

Towards end of my time at school (Sixth Form), video recorders were starting to become popular & less exorbitantly priced, early 80s, there were some kids who had dodgy vids (be they "video nasties" or porn) so if kids wanted to watch them, they could.

Quite common at parties held at someone's house (where they owned a VCR) that porn vids would be playing throughout the event.

This was very working class area & comprehensive - I would imagine it was the same in more "posh" areas (except more families could afford VCRs & a chance some kids even had their own, not relying on the family player)

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop!

Preferably never start.

Thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn’t it be easier to just ban children?

All kinds of problems solved then!

[choleric]

Skewered in the sewer with Sir Kier

Those who have taken an informed, careful approach to IT developments over the years, who have opted to learn how to maintain the core parts of their own infrastructure (eg. on premises, low cost) rather than opt in to all the "free" cloudy stuff will be penalised here again.

Last year I had to shutter some self-hosted alternative social media instances because OSA made them too risky to continue to administer. OSA skewered me by pushing me closer to big social media because they were promising to offer effective compliance with the new law in a way I could not. Email only survives because there is a specific exemption; the overly broad language of the rest of the law requires that named exceptions have to be made.

This breadth means it is now illegal to develop new forms of digital communication in the UK, ie. we are stuck with the slop they are now trying to fix, rather than being able to step out of the mire with something new.

OSA was going to make everything better but it hasn't, and now they want to do more and move even faster.

Not everyone has jumped into the sewer, Sir Keir. In your haste to scramble out - and I inderstand your new-found horror, it has motivated me to take the approach I have these past decades - please take the care you should to avoid pulling others down into it and giving them the problem you have made for yourself.

[BartyFartsLast]

Aside from the ridiculous intrusions into our privacy and the clumsy use of "fink ov the kiddies" to shoehorn a use case for digital ID, it is so trivial to implement I cannot believe it's beyond the wit of ISPs to offer routers with two separate WiFi networks, one filtered and kid safe, the other for the grown ups?

[Tubz]

"Think of the kids", same old cry from Starmer Socialist dictatorship, his loony friends and activists, this is just another attempt at controlling narrative, regardless of the content, he is reading straight from the Hitler/Stalin/Putin/etc guide to controlling the masses. Stop spread of information, detain protestor, influence judges, cancelling of elections (thankfully now illegal), right to privacy or free thought, etc.

People may laugh and say nut jobs, but "1984" is peaking through the back cover of the Labour manifesto, is not so funny anymore.

[_wojtek]

SM in it's current form should be burned to the ground with napalm...

Let's be honest, current day "social"-media has absolutely nothing to do with being social and should be eradicated from the face I'd the planet...

use we want something really social the create a medium that: only has real people without any sort if bots (even for "helpful automation; yes probably some sort of verification during sign-up but with zero-knowledge-proof), no likes or automatic content positioning, just list of (recent) posts... just friends and buddies

for "media" created a platform where you can publish anything "engaging" with likes and whatnot but with strict rules (like in regular press): dull disclosure who owns the accoubt and make them responsible for the publication (and running any sort of clarification if spreading misinformation)

[IamAProton]

Re: SM in it's current form should be burned to the ground with napalm...

Ah, got it, Social Media ;-)

[_wojtek]

Re: SM in it's current form should be burned to the ground with napalm...

naughty naughty ;)

[Eric Wiltsher]

Make parents responsible.

1. All under 16 phones can only send SMS and make calls - zero data

2. Only allow wifi access at school and home - supervised

3. Remind parents a phone isn't an unpaid babysitter

Job done

[moonpunk]

Age Limit For Social Media

One thing I don't understand is why Parliament are currently engaged in a debate about lowering the age of voting, yet at the same time discussing the possibility of legislation being introduced to prevent young people from accessing Social Media. In my opinion the two issues seem to be at loggerheads with each other

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Age Limit For Social Media

It's so that those who have been pissed off by the social media restrictions can have an earlier opportunity to express their views on the matter.

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: Age Limit For Social Media

>I don't understand is

It's because there is more than one agenda in play.

On the one hand Labour (ie PM and advisors) are planning to give the vote to 16 & 17 year olds in the belief that it'll increase Labour's vote share. It's one of a number of things they're trying to do to fix future elections in their favour.

Meanwhile the SM ban is being driven by 50+ Labour backbenchers (so nothing to do with Starmer and his advisors) who sensing Starmer's current weakness think this is their moment to push for an under 16 SM ban - and it is because Starmer is not going to say no to them, or to any other large group of Labour backbenchers whatever they are demanding because if he does they'll oust him.

[MrBanana]

Months to implement?

Even if it was going to be implemented at the end of the week. He will have U-turned before lunch on Thursday.

[tip pc]

https is effectively a vpn especially when coupled with esni

when MP's and media talk about vpn's they really mean people obfuscating their internet communications from the ISP.

A VPN is a Virtual Private Network & denotes making a secure connection to a remote network so your machine acts like its virtually at the remote end & connecting to the private systems at the remote end.

But the VPN's being spoken about are really proxies as there is nothing at the remote end the user is connecting to, they are using the connection to prevent someone local to them eavesdropping on their private connectivity to the public internet.

I accept that there are some miscreants that will be connecting to private systems to connect to bad stuff but that's not what is being spoken about here, its people accessing resources in the free open internet & deciding they want to use a VPN to prevent their ISP & possibly government from snooping on them.

We've had it drummed into us for years to check the padlock & ensure sites are secure etc. that padlock means that the information on that page is encrypted between you and the end point.

We should all know that thanks to SNI, a single IP can host an unlimited number of web sites. It was still possible for the ISP to know the site you visit by inspecting your dns queries & the sni contained in the site request headers.

Now with DNS Over Https & encrypted SNI its no longer possible for an ISP to determine what site you are looking at, they will just see the IP of the remote site which as mentioned could host an unlimited number of Sites.

Given a vpn can use any port it wants to, there is nothing to stop an ssl vpn using port 443 to convey the traffic and someone scanning the traffic would just see encrypted garbage to say cloudflare. You could be looking at cars or pictures of pine trees or streaming the latest trailer for Star Wars or watching your no brand camera system,

from the network viewpoint it all looks like legitimate encrypted https traffic but the end website would remain unknown.

So how can they stop that connectivity without mandating some kind of client side detection?

is that it?

we will all be mandated to add some kind of government mandated client side scanning app?

This is all very dystopian.

Starmer proimised to tread lightly on our lives but appears top be doing the opposite.

https://youtu.be/xavKVYcYJx8?t=49

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: https is effectively a vpn especially when coupled with esni

>Starmer proimised

He did indeed. But we now know nothing he says should be believed. He is a self-serving charlatan and his whole career as lawyer then politican he has lied.

[Roland6]

Re: https is effectively a vpn especially when coupled with esni

There was a radio programme recently, where it was well argued that the media itself is to blame for the level of distrust peo-le have. In the case of Starmer, they have been out to get him (or whomsoever would have been the Labour leader) from the moment they realised Labour would win the GE.

Remember only 7 Labour MPs out of 400 put their names to the motion that Starmer should go, all the media bluster was from a few “anonymous sources” ie. Created by journalists, writing articles based on a single social media post. Anonymous sources is one area where the US press are better than the UK press, as the US press have to justify why their source is anonymous, not simply “trust me, I’m a journalist”.