Online Safety Bill Etc

[Carth]

. . after research found that only seven per cent to ten per cent of children reported using a VPN specifically to bypass age checks . .

Yep, sounds believable enough to me, I don't know many kids of 16/17 years of age that would lie about using a VPN when asked

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The Government has decided not to restrict the use of VPN's for 16/17 year olds after research found that only seven per cent to ten per cent of children reported using a VPN specifically to bypass age checks. It is also concerned that restrictions could damage free speech, according to reports:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...d-out-34292153

In other words, we know we cannot block them so we will forget that bit.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

Yep, sounds believable enough to me, I don't know many kids of 16/17 years of age that would lie about using a VPN when asked

i don't know any that would answer

Is "ugh" a Yes or No ?

They decided they didnt want the shite show that foolisly trying to ban their next lot of voters off VPNs would cause.

[damien c]

Probably told by ISP's that they wouldn't block them on a network level and the VPN providers probably said "we will not give the ip's to you for all the servers, even though we could just change them after giving them to you".

There is ways to block them, it's not really difficult, I can do it on my home network albeit my slightly more advanced than the normal home user network but still, I can block them easily but don't because why bother, it's not going to change anything.

The simple way they will go about the data collection that they want is to force a keylogger etc on your systems, we have already seen this with Edge, with LG and nGreedia, there is more stuff that people are ignoring or don't know about and so it will just be "accepted" by the vast majority.

[Itshim]

Should really never trust what people say to researchers, it really depends on what and of cause the wording of the question.

[nffc]

Let's hope Burnham being PM and Liz Kendall getting fired from cabinet is the beginning of putting a stop to this nonsense

[damien c]

Doubt it, he will probably double down on it, too much money to lose if he tried to stop it.

[jem]

Originally Posted by damien c

Doubt it, he will probably double down on it, too much money to lose if he tried to stop it.

In what way?

[damien c]

Originally Posted by jem

In what way?

You have to think about it in the way that Digital ID, plus the OSA is being used and what services and business's are being created to specifically deal with this BS!


Let's say "Data Scrapper" one aka Microslop say's "we are not going to invest £x Million/Billion in your country if you remove these law's", all of a sudden the leader of that country says "oh we have thought about it again and we are not going to remove it" questions get asked why and no real answer is given, but behind the scenes anyone with common sense knows "money" that is the reason!

[RichardCoulter]

Digital ID isn't going to happen.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Digital ID isn't going to happen.

it was never funded

[RichardCoulter]

Following the incident at the weekend where seven people lost their lives, the Government is to order that videos of driving 'pranks' be taken down.

Not sure if this will be a direct order or done via amending the Online Safety Act.

I support this and find it shocking that such material was allowed anyway (the latest trend on Tik Tok involves youngsters thinking they're being clever by recording themselves deliberately driving the wrong way down a road).

These companies are only interested in making money, so it remains to be seen if any will refuse to take such videos down and what the Government/Ofcom do in response.

[nffc]

Good luck to them with that because tik tok are based in China


Have they not learned from 4chan?

[damien c]

This sort of thing has been going on for years, but with the rise of "you cannot tell kids off" and the whole "influencer" BS, it's becoming more and more prevalent with kids thinking they can do what they want.

I agree it should be removed and should not be allowed, however I doubt anything will actually happen, other than a few slapped wrist's for a few weeks and then back to normal.



In other news the House of Incompetents (lords) is wanting a new Inquiry into the OSA, with the following questions:

https://committees.parliament.uk/sub...l-for-evidence

Impact of the Online Safety Act

1) What evidence, if any, is there that children are safer online since the OSA protection of children duties came into force?

2) What evidence, if any, is there that UK users are less exposed to illegal content and activity since the OSA illegal content duties came into force?

3) Has the OSA been effective in protecting groups disproportionately affected by harms within its scope, including women and girls, and those vulnerable to exploitation?

4) Have the OSA’s provisions been effective in driving services to a) identify relevant risks, b) take proportionate action that adequately mitigates those risks, and c) make meaningful changes to their systems, processes and design features?

5) Has the OSA impacted users’ ability to report illegal content or content harmful to children, make complaints and receive an appropriate and timely response, and to what extent?

6) What unintended consequences, if any, have arisen from the Act or its implementation, including for freedom of expression, privacy and accessibility?

Ofcom’s implementation and enforcement

7) Has Ofcom’s interpretation and implementation of the OSA to date given appropriate effect to its provisions?

8) What changes, if any, are needed to improve the effectiveness of Ofcom’s a) illegal content and protection of children codes of practice, b) guidance on violence against women and girls, or c) wider regulatory approach?

9) Where duties are in force, how effective and timely have Ofcom’s supervision and enforcement been in driving improvements and securing compliance?

10) Are there any factors that may be limiting Ofcom’s ability to carry out its duties under the OSA effectively? If so, what changes are needed?

Adequacy and future of the legislative framework

11) What specific changes, if any, are needed to the existing provisions in the OSA to improve their effectiveness?

12) Beyond amending the OSA, what specific action should the Government, Ofcom, regulated services or Parliament take to address any shortcomings in the online safety regime?

13) How well can the existing online safety framework respond to emerging harms and technologies? What changes, within the existing framework of the Act, are needed to ensure that it remains fit for the future, and should these be made within the existing framework or through further primary legislation?

14) What impact could the recent and proposed additions to the UK’s online safety framework, including the Government’s proposals to restrict access to social media for under 16s, have on the OSA’s implementation and effectiveness?



They must be feeling the pinch from Thieving Reeves policies hitting them in their pockets so want to try and get some money back.