Exactly, even increasing education on parental controls or legal requirements for that would be better if they actually cared about the children. I think the goal is actually just surveilence.
Slightly more conspiratorially, I think the goal might be to do just that: push users to more unsafe options, then use that you can justify more crackdowns.
I don’t think it’s intended to be enforced very well, just to ‘boil the frog’ so to say. Either that or incompetence & not realising it won’t work.
Even if it passes and isn’t enforced well it’ll legitimise more surveillance & identity checks. It’ll probably be terrible for privacy on people who aren’t as tech literate to avoid it.
Honestly I’m not opposed to age restriction, so long as its only ever accomplished using zero knowledge proofs of some kind. Or just without revealing identity. But they’ve made it pretty clear with the systems they have implemented already nearly everyone is either incompetent or the goal is survelence all along.
The bill is the “Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill” here and this is the amendment they’re talking about: bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/stages/…/10027478
There’s also a petition to stop that bit “Do not ban children from using virtual private networks”. I’m pesamistic about its chance of it succeeding but after the shinanigins around digital ID, who knows?
Slightly unrelated but the other day I discovered tor browser was being blocked on NHS wifi I could only connect with a bridge. The internet in this country makes me depressed now.
Yeah, I still think it should be heard. I think the decision is off, and it probably should have stopped at the CA but if it was granted permission to appeal go right ahead.
Most of the issues there I think are due to massive underfunding, cuts and bad management. Or similar issues in other adjacent sectors, like prison management, cps and policing.
I don’t think because they’ve been pushed into that situation they should just stop doing they’re normal functions for other areas of law. Trademarks out of all IP I think are nessisary both from a business and consumer protection prespective. And the courts cannot decided weather to hear a case or not based on who brought it, lobbyers or no. Although yes the decision I’m not keen on and it probably should have been decided earlier.
If they want to use milk in trademarks there should be a change to the legislation on what trademarks are prohibited and what ‘milk’ as a designation mean. It doesn’t prevent people calling it milk just blocked the use of the protected trademark, notes how trademark law interprets milk as a designation and how the trademark in question is interpreted.
Yeah I can agree with a lot of that, honestly 2008 & so much since has made it pretty clear money’s the priority. Well before that really with thatcher’s bloody privatising spree, selling off everything.
I just don’t think the courts are to blame, parliament & government are to blame for that. And by extension the money lobbying all that, the people who say the problem is immigrants not money.
a question we’re thinking about for a second time?!
I’m unfortunately gonna make it worse for you here, its probably 4 times. The supreme court, court of appeals, the high court and the IPO itself. You can read more on the case here.
Honestly brexit fucked up this since we’re duplicating work now, previously it’d be the EUIPO not the UKIPO doing this. I remember there being talk of creating a merged system even after bexit but no idea what became of that. They need to fix it up at some point, but either way the courts gonna be spending time doing things like this.
(1) Is the term ‘POST MILK GENERATION’ a “designation” for the purposes of Article 78 of Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 (as amended) (the “2013 Regulation”) such that Oatly AB could not register it as a trade mark? (2) If considered a “designation” of “milk”, does the term ‘POST MILK GENERATION’ clearly describe a “characteristic quality of the product” so that its use is not prohibited by the 2013 Regulation?
they’d just hear the case, not investigate. Plus it’d have to go through the lower courts first and some of that might just be a inquiry before convictions sadly :(
I guess there is a massive backlog of cases, but I think it’s fair to hear this one.
That makes more sense. I interpreted your ‘my country’ more generally… like actions of government or something co-ordinated.
Still, the supreme court just heard and decided the case. Nor is it a consious decision to do this rather than deal with all the other stuff. I guess they could have refused permission to appeal earlier, but I don’t think whatever else going on is a consideration. They’d just look at the case itself. And I think that’s the best way about it.
That said, I’m not sure I agree with it either, but I haven’t read it in full. Just the guardian article.
