REaction for Online security act Several is divided deeply with Independent The readers are afraid that the new law will greatly reduce the protecting children, creating a significant threat to free speech and personal privacy.
Several commentators warned that the widespread and vague definitions of the “harmful materials” can result in news, political debate and even parliamentary speech censorship.
Others said that children seeking online banned materials are often more technique-lover than adults and can easily bypass safety measures. Using free VPN Or fake ID.
Many people realized that the law gets away from the responsibility from the parents, arguing that they should monitor the online behavior of their children, and provide inconsistent power to technical companies and regulators.
Meanwhile, many expressed concern over the risks of identity verification, warning that forcing adults to share personal data with global porn sites or verification services could lead to large -scale data violations.
While some readers defended the government’s intentions to reduce online loss, overall consensus was doubted, the bill is either ineffective with several debates or Dangerously overlapping,
“It’s just seen to do something,” one said. “Meanwhile, it inspires people to deepen the corners of the Internet and puts millions at risk of violation of privacy.”
What did you say here:
This is about the safety of your children
No matter how Faraj and his media supporters bend it and bend it, the online security bill is designed to protect your children, your grandchildren, children on the road, and their school students from harm on the Internet.
If Faraj does not like this bill, as an MP, he can bring his bill forward in Parliament. However, as the leader of a party of four, it will work hard and in the House of Commons in several weeks, both are against their existence.
Decay
Criticism is fine – but provide a real option
This is perfectly fine for farage (or any politician) to eliminate the current online security bill – it certainly seems an important, and perhaps not very effective, the bill.
But online security is an issue, and so instead of rejecting it only, it must be on Faraj to propose appropriate modifications or an option. Faraj needs to demonstrate that he is a responsible politician with viable policies rather than only a populist. He does not have much time left to prove this.
Davani
The Online Security Act has given a strong opinion about secrecy and security -what do you have to take? Share your thoughts in Information Below
Sensitive data
The intentions behind the rules are good, but they have a lot of problems. Most children who want to see doddy content online will find their way around them very soon.
Meanwhile, how long does sensitive data uploaded to pass AV check leaked? Applying the AV system is manageable for large companies, but for small artists caught by these rules, cost will be prohibitory.
Avoid
Doing something can just be seen to act
This is a terrible policy – just to do something to be seen. Never notice that 99 percent of people are able to go to Google for the purpose of restricting it and are able to search to go around it.
There will be unavoidable results:
- Children are also operated in less controlled and monitored parts of the Internet; And
- Thousands (or millions of) are suffering from adult data violations that see them legally in their personal life.
Mark in notable
The responsibility of parents should come first
This has always been the work of parents/parents to protect their children from harmful materials. Those who could not face the results from law and social services, etc.
Therefore it should depend on the parents/parents to protect their children, while they also use the Internet, although perhaps there should be strong laws, fines, etc. for those parents/parents who fail to protect their children.
This online security bill is only a cone that will be used to suppress free speech and dissatisfaction, and will not do anything to protect children who are enough to use the Internet and a free VPN. But this responsibility will take away from parents/parents and they feel that the Internet is now safe for children, which actually makes children less safe.
Now
Thoroughly in vain
The online security bill has some flaws. First of all, it will drive anyone, it thinks that it can stop using the dark web, where the material is completely irregular, harmful, and provides extreme limit that many will not search or encounter many generally.
Second, with its vague wordless and heavy fines, we have noticed that social media companies are just preventing access to anything that can be considered as “harmful” materials. This includes regular news, protests and even the House of Commons includes some MP speeches – as it falls under the wider umbrella of “harmful materials”.
Last, and perhaps most important, it would not prevent anyone from accessing what he had already done – just using a free VPN. So it is completely meaningless.
227detius
Pure madness
Of course, there is an untold cost related to such investigation on public expenses – perhaps billions of pounds! But if we are serious about fighting cybercrime (without turning the country into any police state), it should begin with serious measures to prevent theft and protect personal data.
It is pure madness that people share personal data with adult website companies working around the world. Even if some of these companies claim to follow GDPR, we do not know what they will do with them at some point in future. In addition, there is nothing to stop cyber criminals from installing fake adult sites, simply to steal Britain’s personal data – or whatever is left.
It is also expensive, infiltrated and morally wrong to ask companies to monitor the adult website logs and verify the identity of all.
Instead, parents should examine their children’s online habits to protect them. They can easily use the technique that alerts and allows them to ban internet access. If they need to report any suspicious activity to the police, it should be seriously and well examined to prevent any false allegations. Once the crimes are investigated and confirmed, the law should ensure that criminals do not get away from their actions with orders of home restrictions!
Cathintetisback
Personality politics
Wish people understood that others including EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) were worried about the bill, before it was brought instead of using personality politics to bring back it.
While no one wants the children to be exposed to any kind of pornography or self-loss material, the bill was more wider and included the possible ability to monitor general social interaction and legitimate decisions based on it.
The bill could make it clear that non-boy-in-law related to material or expression would not be affected. But they were not, and as a result, the doors have been opened for criticism.
About
Vpn
More than 450,000 signatures have been registered on the government petition site to cancel the bill, which has already been responded to, that this is not going to happen. Interestingly, the reasons are called as the safety of the UK users (I think the online security act, not the online Child Safety Act).
The use of VPN is reportedly paid for about 3,000% – 60% free vs 40% – and the most entertaining thing is how children have obtained around ID challenge using fake driver’s license, it turns out that it was found online.
About
Some comments have been edited to this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your thoughts? Just register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the top stories of the day. Alternatively, click on ‘login’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
Make sure you follow us Community GuidelinesWhat can be found HereHow to comment for a complete guide Click here.
