What if sites start to request more information than they need because why not? If you don't give it, you don't get access, and you want access. What incentive do they have for requesting less information?
If the existing situation with website registrations, required ID uploads for social media, signing in with Google/Apple/Microsoft, etc. is to go by, the majority of people don't mind giving out nearly anything about them when asked for it by someone who seems trustworthy at a brief glance.
No, it wasn't always nebulous. Roguelike was a well-established genre for decades before it got hijacked and now means nothing.
Like all genres, games within the roguelike genre (or what some people call "traditional roguelikes") have some variance. But if you played two games in the "traditional roguelike" genre, you'd definitely feel the similarities.
These days if you pick two random games on Steam with the "roguelike" tag, you're going to get two experiences which are not even reminiscent of the other.
The meaning degraded much earlier than just a couple years ago. People thought it was cool so they latched onto it. It seems like that process started 7-8 years ago, maybe even a bit further back.
I played a *lot* of rogue in the early 80s. I can't remember a single game marketed as a "roguelike" that I've played that reminded me of playing rogue.
I haven't played Rogue, but I've played a lot of Moria, Nethack, and AdoM. Those are what I think of when I hear "Roguelike", although even AdoM might be stretching it a bit with its massive non-random outdoor area.
This comes of as naive. All that would happen with that "one app" is it would be used by advertisers and governments as the one true spying source and there would be literally nothing you could do about it.
Gemini lives rent free in the heads of like 99% of HN users. It's really weird. Look at any Gemini network posts on here. So much hate for a little network that just sits there and does its thing.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 means authorities can request encryption keys (passwords) from you and you can't say no.
Investigatory Powers Act 2016 literally nicknamed Snoopers' Charter. Means ISPs keep all your traffic for minimum a year, police are given access to it, but politicians are exempt and need a warrant to have their data viewed?!?!?
UK police have been rolling out Live Facial Recognition in London and Wales for the last few years. Seven new regions are being added. 10 new vans coming in.
Supermarkets are using facial recognition to keep a database of people they deem criminals.
UK tried to make Apple put in a backdoor to its encrypted storage. Apple removed the ability for UK citizens to use that feature.
Online Safety Act forced online services to implement age verification for "adult" content. Many niche forums closed down because they would face large fines and jail time if they didn't comply. Larger businesses offloaded this requirement onto third party companies so now if you want to see "adult" content online you need to share your face or bank details or government ID with a random third party likely from a different country.
None of the major political parties care about digital rights and in fact want MORE surveillance.
> None of the major political parties care about digital rights and in fact want MORE surveillance.
This is because most of the public don't care about those rights either, and are entirely happy with surveillance. You've got nothing to hide right? If you don't the government to know what you're looking at its probably because you're a paedo, or maybe a terrorist. Maybe even both.
Its not the government who need to be convinced on this, it's the general public, and currently there's not really anyone out there explaining how you can't have a backdoor that only the government and good guys will be able to use.
No, the IPA 2016 does not require all ISPs to retain copies of all traffic for one year. There are already enough bad things to say about that act without making shit up.
Those 'niche' forums you mention are explicitly excluded from the Act.
Apple made the change to advanced security in advance of the bill being finalised, now the government has gone in another direction.
All the online safety act does is implement online the law as it stands IRL. British folk have been using the same ID verification systems to validate identity for nightclub admission, passport applications, driving licence applications, benefits claims, state pension claims, disclosure and barring checks, tax filings, mortgage deeds, security clearances, job applications, and court filings since 2016.
All the reaction is just pearl clutching - 5 million checks a day are being performed, the law itself is wildly popular with 70% support amongst adults after implementation.
There are three levels of checks - IAL1 (self-asserted, low confidence), IAL2 (remote or physical proof of identity), and IAL3 (rigorous proof with biometric and physical presence requirements).
IPA 2016 affords police access to your domain history, not content history, provided police can obtain a warrant from a senior High Court Judge. The box which stores the data is at ISP level and is easily circumvented with a VPN, or simply not using your ISP's DNS servers.
IPA 2016 doesn't exempt politicians from surveillance. It includes specific provisions for heightened safeguards when intercepting their communications. The Act establishes a "triple-lock" system for warrants targeting members of a relevant legislature, requiring approval from the Secretary of State, a Judicial Commissioner, and the Prime Minister. This heightened scrutiny is in recognition of the sensitivity involved in surveilling politicians, particularly given the surveillance of Northern Irish politicians and others in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (in force 1 October 2007), and Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides powers over encryption keys/passwords etc. Section 49, RIPA can be used to force decryption, Section 51 to supply keys or passwords. These are identical to powers the police have IRL over safes, deposit boxes etcetera, and the penalty for non-compliance is identical.
You cannot use encryption or passwords to evade legal searches with a scope determined by a court on the basis of evidence of probable cause shown to the court by the entity requesting the search. A warrant from the High Court is required for each use.
Notable cases:-
- Blue chip hacking scandal - corrupt private investigators were illegally obtaining private information on behalf of blue chip companies.
- Phone hacking scandal - corrupt private investigators were illegally hacking voice mail on behalf of newspapers.
- Founder of an ISP using his position to illegally intercept communications and use them for blackmail.
> Those 'niche' forums you mention are explicitly excluded from the Act.
No, they are not.
> Our research indicates that over 100,000 online services are likely to be in scope of the Online Safety Act – from the largest social media platforms to the smallest community forum. We know that new regulation can create uncertainty – particularly for small organisations that may be run on a part time or voluntary basis.
Yes, they are in scope but a "small community forum" has nothing to do but to fill and keep a few self-assessments just in case. There is no requirement to implement age verification across the board (hence why current official guidelines target only porn sites in relation to age verification).
You are being facetious as "priority illegal contents" are the sort that are the ones that are obviously very unlikely to be encountered on a "normal" small community forum. So this is no more than a box-ticking exercise, really.
Regarding age verification, the OSA is explicit states that if you ban all such content in your T&Cs you do NOT need to have age verification.
I take it you didn't read your own link, the language used is "services".
If you happen to be running the UK panty wetters forum from your own server, then you have a problem, but grandma Jessie's knitting circle is explicitly not in scope.
YOUR link goes on to say
>the more onerous requirements will fall upon the largest services with the highest reach and/or those services that are particularly high risk.
Even if your forum falls in scope, you're only required to do a risk assessment, if at that stage you are likely to have a lot of underage users, then there might be an issue.
However, if you're not an adult site, you only need to comply by providing the lowest level of self certified check. Handily, most of the big forum software providers have already implemented this and offer a free service integration.
> I take it you didn't read your own link, the language used is "services".
I do love it when people lie and then try to get sassy when called out.
> Even if your forum falls in scope, you're only required to do a risk assessment, if at that stage you are likely to have a lot of underage users, then there might be an issue.
I also like it when people who accuse others of not reading prove themselves incapable of reading - as pointed out below, what I linked is required regardless of the assumed age of your userbase.
I don't think it's a particularly hard concept to grasp what's happening here. UI elements above content stop you seeing it. Apple has tried to make them both see through so that you screen feels bigger and stand out so that you can actually interact with the UI effectively. Some images/demos look good. Some look horrible. Time will tell.
I would like this if it actually stuck to its own philosophy but for some crazy reason just HTML needs googletag manager and telebugs to look after it. Webdevs just can't leave shit alone can they?
