Technology

73457 readers

3472 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

1031

UK households could face VPN 'ban' after use skyrockets following Online Safety Bill (www.birminghammail.co.uk)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

356 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Prominent backbench MP Sarah Champion launched a campaign against VPNs previously, saying: “My new clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill’s passage, a report on the effect of VPN use on Ofcom’s ability to enforce the requirements under clause 112.

"If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems.” And the Labour Party said there were “gaps” in the bill that needed to be amended.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] glog78@digitalcourage.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

@arc99 @SpaceCadet thats basically allowing the Government to force the ISP's to build a solution which is able to sensor every content. Sorry there is alot of reasons why you should be against it.

PS: even your deep packet inspection falls short to end 2 end encryption / decryption ...

[–] arc99@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Deep packet inspection already happens on encrypted traffic (Fortigate Firewall) so it's eminently possible for filtering software to do the same.

[–] glog78@digitalcourage.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

@arc99 please inform yourself about end to end encryption and decryption.
All i say is you haven't understand what is happening on this firewall and what this firewall can do and what the firewall can't do.

[–] arc99@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I'm intimately aware about what it can and cannot do. And it can intercept and man in the middles any https traffic

[–] glog78@digitalcourage.social 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

@arc99 but end 2 end encryption is not by default https traffic ;) ssh / vpn are protocolls ( end 2 end encryption, decryptio) and this firewall can't deep inspect while this protocoll can easy tunnel other tunnels.

[–] arc99@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I really do not know what you are saying. I have just told you that Fortigate Firewall can and does do deep packet inspection on https connections. It does so by man in the middle proxying. If one filter / proxy can do it then any other could too. There would be ways for kids to circumvent this, e.g via VPN but that is no different than with age verification.

[–] glog78@digitalcourage.social 1 points 1 hour ago

@arc99

I said (picture) your deep inspection falls short to real end 2 end. You said your firewall can break end 2 end ... nope they can't and never will and you exactly said this in your last post too. (Sidenote -> i can gpg a text and post it public even with https .. for 99% it will be giberish and only the person who got the right key material will be able to read it ) ... so using deep package inspection to identify something you want to protect kids from is just a lie ...