Posts by Nerf Herder 22 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Oct 2011
... have this the other way round. I'd like a Linux-driven (but not ChromeOS!) handheld with an Android session option (virtualised on some suitable hypervisor would be fine). I want Linux to be in control of the hardware/system and to give Android only the minimum it requires to run each Android app that I need. I suppose it would be a bit like GrapheneOS in applying control over the Android side, but with Linux as the underlying host OS.
Not to make light of childhood trauma but no matter what technology is adopted, and no matter what legislation is enacted, there will always be cases of abuse and harm, as regrettable as they are. I don't support widespread child access to social media. We agree on that. It's the 'how' (where the filter/block is implemented) and 'who' (the decision maker) where we disagree. I also have strong opinions on the potential for scope creep of 'age verification' (ID) technology and its ultimate application to consenting adults that I believe is inevitable if people don't push back.
"... but Google, Apple, and social media networks won't do anything they're not legally obliged to ...".
Precisely. Filtering/site blocking at device level (in concert with DNS) and 'safe search', which already exists (so requires no more cooperation), gets around platform or site intransigence. I don't mind legislation to put the 'one click' simplicity of choice in the parents' hands and would rather the age 'verification' be performed by the parent at the point of exercising that choice.
Regardless of what major platforms like TikTok or Facebook do (or don't do), there will be hundreds of thousands (and then some) of unsavoury sites not fit for children that no legislation centering on 'age verification' will ever address. But filtering/site blocking can and does do this and can be kept accurate up-to-the-minute. I've set up and run such systems myself. Don't expect perfection, but it's better, IMO, than relying on a handful of platforms to 'verify age' ... and thusly mandate and make commonplace the most invasive ID technology yet created ... and aimed at children, too!
Sorry for the long-winded rant ...
I'm no fan of social media. There are good and bad aspects to each service but on balance I could do without the lot of them and I avoid them if possible. Having said that, I am a firm advocate of informed free choice. My choice is not your choice. Also, not every adolescent matures at the same rate and parental wishes should be respected, IMO.
I would much prefer a solution along the lines of provisioning each child's device in 'kid mode'. You know the drill: locked admin/owner acount, child (user) blocked from installing new apps or changing DNS settings, no VPNs permitted, mandatory content filtering and site blocking (e.g. via 'safe' DNS), safe search, etc. That could be made even better if filtering, search and site blocking were linked to the age bracket of the child (user). For shared devices (home or school computer, if anyone is still using those), the humble user account ought to be able to achieve the same (since it has for many years now). Nothing is 100% perfect, but at least that puts the power in the parents' hands, leveraging existing technology that could be made almost 'one click' simple with a few tweaks - and that's where I think Governments should really be exerting pressure - to make that 'kid mode' as simple and foolproof as possible.
But no. Government is instead mandating IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING as they do with monotonous regularity. Why do they always choose that path? Hmmmmm.
To me it's simple. Platforms and OS makers cooperate to make 'kid mode' an almost 'one click' simple operation. PARENTS make the decision to activate the mode and select the maturity level or age bracket. PARENTS also provide the parental guidance around why (assisted by, one expects, a helpful brochure from the Government). Safe DNS/safe search should filter out adult-oriented non-platform sites. Site block lists or content filters could even be augmented or provided by Government. This approach allows the adults to be left alone to do what THEY choose free (short of actual criminal violations such as CSAM, drug trade, etc.) from privacy intrusions or, more specifically, free from the threat of being identified and tracked like animals against an ever-shifting idea of what is or isn't 'acceptable'.
As an Aussie, I've been following all this very closely for the last two or so years. Before a social media ban, the rage was against porn (not CSAM, just regular porn) using the argument that adult identification was required to stop underage access. Yes, they really were lobbying hard to IDENTIFY every adult porn watcher. Of course, they claim it would be anonymised age verification .... pull the other one! But the emphasis suddenly switched to social media.
Being the cynical old b*stard that I am - and having worked in Government for many years - my take is that this social media ban (through age verification, i.e. ID and tracking) is a dress rehearsal for a future porn ban (through age verification, i.e. ID and tracking). It started that way and I think it will finish that way. There really are people, in no small number, who believe even consensual adult porn is inherently evil and that its watchers must be identified and tracked as 'criminals in waiting'. Personally, I gave up that kind of thing years ago so it wouldn't affect me ... but ... my choice is not your choice.
"The only way to combat the rise of extremism, hate and bile on social media is to make them liable for it.."
I disagree that it's the only way. It's the most convenient and politically palatable way, especially since it passes all costs to the platform (and therefore its users) and simultaneously excuses law enforcement of any real detective work.
As for my own position, I think that, while Governments have a difficult job in rooting out creators of, and active participants in, illegal activity (such as CSAM, the drug trade and extremism), forcing primary responsibility for enforcement onto the platform is a cop out with severe negative consequences (as has been alluded to in this comments page and many others).
The dividing line between sensible law enforcement and political expediency is increasingly blurry and it is adding to the erosion of trust in Government and institutions. Whilst there may be serious illegality on Telegram to be dealt with (innocent until proven guilty one would hope, even though that's not entirely how the French criminal justice system operates), it would nevertheless behoove the French Government to approach this matter with more regard for the optics than they have shown so far.
I'd love to see Android divested so that the Android AOSP project could escape and thrive, offering a fuller set of features (rather than functionality being siphoned off into Google Play Services). That would create a more level playing field for competing ROMs (e.g. LineageOS or GrapheneOS) and hopefully promote alternative app stores like F-Droid. I've been getting tired of reading about Google Play Store apps only working with Google Play Services (instead of - as I think they should - also working on Android AOSP) or refusing to work if a strict hardware attestation fails (which is actually a software attestation). That stifles competition through Google's control of dependencies, e.g. the latest casualty is Authy. There ought to simply be an open certification process for ROMs as well as apps.
Chrome, I'm not so fussed with providing the Chromium open-source project is freed from Google's clutches. After that, Google can do what it likes with Chrome. Seeing as Chromium is the foundation for the vast majority of browsers (by user count, that is), and has thus become central to most people's access to essential online services, then running it under a foundation that's funded by multiple companies is the solution that seems obvious to me.
"I like how Apple makes it simple ..."
Unless you don't own an Apple device, in which case it's a nightmare. I subscribed to AppleTV+ through a browser for use on an other-branded set-top-box (fully supported by Apple, with their own streaming app). It was easy and took a couple of minutes to create the corresponding AppleID. You can even subscribe through the set-top-box if you want.
However, there is (still) no unsubscribe option in the set-top-box app and the cancellation button in the AppleTV+ website doesn't work unless you use their approved browser and OS - Linux is forbidden even though that's exactly what I used to sign up, without issue. This is contrary to their online help pages.
It took hours of trying different browser combos and settings to realise that would never work. I then spent over 90 minutes on Apple support chat - being given the run around in very obvious ways - until they finally said, "OK, I can do that". And then it took two minutes.
Apple wants you to buy an Apple device or subscribe through iTunes (not available on Linux in a way that satisfies Apple, by the way). Of course. none of that was explained up front.
Lesson learned: don't subscribe to AppleTV+. Second lesson learned: avoid online products that seek to impose "software facism" (I'm looking at you, Apple, Google and Microsoft).
Here's an incomplete list of banks in Australia and their current CA (all the main banks are covered). 12 out of 27 are using Entrust, Inc. Other CAs in use are DigiCert, Sectigo, Amazon, Cloudflare, Google Trust Services and even Let's Encrypt.
Commonwealth - Entrust
ANZ - DigiCert
NAB - Entrust
Westpac - Entrust
St. George - Entrust (Westpac)
Bank of Melbourne - Entrust (Westpac)
Bank of Queensland - Entrust
Bank SA - Entrust
Maquarie - Entrust
AMP - DigiCert
IMB - Let's Encrypt
BOQ - Entrust
Beyond - Google Trust Services
BankWest - DigiCert
Bank Australia - DigiCert
Suncorp - DigiCert
Bendigo - Entrust
Unity - Sectigo
MyState - Amazon
ING - Entrust
Defence - Cloudflare
Aus Military - DigiCert
Aus Mutual - Sectigo
UBank - Enrust (NAB)
Teachers Mutual - Google Trust Services
ME - DigiCert (BOQ)
BankFirst - Let's Encrypt
(Owning bank is included in brackets if known to be a subsidiary).
I think your first four points are excellent. The rest doesn't fit my own view of what Firefox should be, which is, as you say: "zero surprise, it's a browser, just be a browser and always be a browser". The rest of the feature set is mostly unnecessary for typical desktop browser users, but perhaps it could be fit into an expanded "Firefox Plus" (or whatever cool name someone comes up with) if there's the market for it. One person's extra feature is another person's bloat.
I would like improved tab management, though, and easier access to multiple sandboxed profiles would be appreciated though not essential - still within the realm of just being a browser (and a darned good one, hopefully).
Telstra T-Box - available in Australia to Telstra BigPond customers - a twin-tuner, 200GB, DVR/STB with IPTV/VoD built in. Nice interface, great idea and looks good on paper. But that's the good part. The bad? It's &#^@$%^ frustrating to own and operate (excuse the muffled expletive, but I can't communicate my true meaning without it)! Many of them, including mine, are as unreliable as hell - the EPG drops programs regularly, only partly re-loads itself, and sometimes stops updating altogether, which means scheduled recordings just stop - with no ^%*!%@ warning. Then there's the unresponsive remote, system freezes, soft reboots, hard reboots and sometimes a mandatory manual reboot to get it back to working order. How often, you ask? With my system, something happens every ^#$&*@^ day!! Oh, sure, customer service is there to "help you through the problem", but that's not going to fix the firmware is it? As someone on Whirlpool put it, when they asked for advice on what to try next with their faulty remote, "Shove it sideways up a certain Telstra product manager's ****!"
Maybe part of the blame lies with NetGem, who made the underlying Linux box, or maybe it's the application developer, or something else. In any event, I sincerely hope that the BT box turns out a hell of a lot more reliable than the T-Box.
PS: I love Linux and have used it for many years, but that doesn't mean that everything that runs on Linux is good.
+1 for using NoScript in Firefox for Google search (I've been using it for a couple of years and haven'y had any issues save the Google search home page looking slightly different). To still use Google's other products (that require javascript) us a second browser, which may as well be Chrome seeing as it's Google's products we're talking about.
I had been using Epiphany (in Linux) as the second browser but am in the process of switching to Chrome for that function.
Telstra are also calling customers, but the call comes from an 08 (Western Australia) number belonging to an associated marketing sub-contractor, even though the caller says they're Telstra from (your city).
The problem is that the caller doesn't clearly identify what the call is about and the first thing the caller asks for is your date of birth, right after there's been a big privacy breach. I even asked if it was related to the privacy breach and was told "no" it's a "line issue" and "we need to confirm your details". After much investigation, it turned out to be legitimate, but, at the time, it was indistinguishable from a scam call.
At the very least, it's a lousy way to go about this business. IMHO, typical bloody Telstra!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
