🛡️ #Cybersecurity news & tips across the #fediverse
“Age Verification causing people to stop installing security updates on iPhone
https://alecmuffett.com/article/153062
#AgeVerification #OnlineSafety #OnlineSafetyAct #censorship #irony #surveillance
Age ...”
https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:pqu2e7tcsysxrlkarhfm3z5u/post/3mileiviiyq24
🤖 via RSS feed. Not an endorsement.
Which UK party actually cares about digital privacy?
Right now, it feels like trust is the real shortage.
The Conservatives built the Online Safety Act and pushed for stronger age verification. Labour is enforcing the age-check regime, while digital ID is still under consideration by the government. A few opposition voices sound better on civil liberties, but slogans are easy when you are not the one holding power.
That is why more people are asking a harsher question: not who talks best about privacy, but who has actually earned trust not to build a permissioned internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SbsGRQsGgQ
Which party, if any, do you trust to defend digital rights?
#DigitalPrivacy #OnlineSafetyAct #DigitalID #UKPolitics #Privacy #CivilLiberties
Age Verification causing people to stop installing security updates on iPhone
What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/PrivacyMatters/status/2039955877382226278
#ageVerification #censorship #irony #onlineSafety #onlineSafetyAct #surveillanceUK officials are now openly consulting on age-restricting children's VPN use, even while government text says lawful adult VPN use should not be restricted and VPNs remain legal. The NCSC also describes VPNs as a normal secure infrastructure for organisations. And the poll being pushed around asked about banning VPNs for under-18s, not everyone, with 25% saying "don't know".
Watch: youtu.be/GCfc61j6AUQ
This is how mission creep happens: more ID checks, more third-party data collection, less privacy.
Are we protecting children, or teaching people to treat privacy tools as suspicious?
In the light of today's confirmation decisions from Ofcom, I have updated my blogpost about what constitutes a "significant" number of users for the purposes of Part 3 #OnlineSafetyAct
Nothing ground-breaking in there, tbh.
But I do have concerns around some of the "target market" analysis, in terms of pornography services.
Ofcom seems to regard a service as having a significant number of UK users if it has more than 855 monthly active users and fewer than 50,000 monthly active users, but exactly where the boundary is remains unclear.
Ofcom has published new information, including confirmation decisions, about enforcement action under the #OnlineSafetyAct in respect of pornography.
I have yet to read it in detail, but I will try to do so later:
California's AB 1043 pushes OS-level age signals. The UK Online Safety Act pushes highly effective age checks. Different models, same core question: can child safety be improved without expanding surveillance?
Where do you draw the line between safety and privacy?
RE: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116313176350075873
One of the aspects of #ageverification and #OnlineSafetyAct that few talk about:
Imagine your kid turns 18 and on that very same day, on a still rather vulnerable age, they are bombarded with ads about performing sex work, joining the army, buying guns, alcohol, and whatever addictive tobacco alternative is trending this year.
All thanks to pushing for age and digital IDs being such an available piece of information in the digital landscape.
Ivy Cyber
Michael J. Burgess
Alec Muffett
Alec Muffett
alecm
Neil Brown
John - Lawful Good Developer