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: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/stages/20215/amendments/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 may be 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 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(specific people’s money). 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.
yeah, it feels kinda petty on behalf of the dairy people tbh
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.
In fairness, its a supreme court ruling after a dairy uk(3rd party) objected to a trademark and its been going on for awhile. So it’s not like it was specifically put on the agender by any government or authority.
Very True, I have had some good use out of ghostarchive. When it works. There’s also self-hosted options like archivebox. And Several paid solutions like perma.cc. Kiwix/Zim too although that’s focused on wiki’s themselves & offline storage/access so not as useful for sources. But yes I’ve found none get consistantly good archives as much as archive.org or archive.today.
I have not heard of etched, but I do tend to avoid a lot of the crypto stuff.
Its also concerning if any of the archives suddenly going down & the data isn’t backed up. I know the storage requirements alone makes good backups unlikely, but with archive.today looking so volitile I wonder if one’s going to be needed.
Edit: added links & spelling
I think the future of wikipedia looks a bit bleak if they drop archive.today now. They need a decent archiver to function. Internet archive is good but its a single group hosted in the US, plus any site with a paywall isn’t surviving on the internet archive very well.
They’ve needed good alternative for awhile and the need is just growing. I wish public libraries could fill the gap but its probably not realistic. We’ve had legal deposit requirements for non-print media in various jurisdictions for awhile but i’m doubtful how effective it is, nor is it convenient to access or use for wikipedia.
It had to be done.
I personally like the one where they hear about linux without gnu and just die. Very enjoyable. I expect a good continuation on gnu hurd & gnu without linux eventually.
Gnu Taler seems really interesting, if the trial in Switzerland goes well it might have a chance. I’m still hopeful we can have nice things.
Honestly, dark chocolate tastes much better than the milky stuff anyway, its way too sweet. Still, i’m not sure how ‘healthy’ it is compared to anything else.
oh yes that makes a lot of sense for server stuff. I imagine that may be quite useful for general use & maintenance too.
I’m too caught up thinking of consumer stuff.
EU Regulations are directly applicable to all member states, so its not needed to transpose those into domestic law for them to be used. Some countries’ constitutional setup mess with this(like the uk eh pre-brexit I guess), but in general regulations are as important if not more than domestic law.
Directives can be directly used in domestic courts but only under certain conditions. The defendant/respondant needs to be a public body and the transposition deadline must have passed. Its basicly ‘you failed to implement it in time — tough’. Also if they’re not implemented correctly. But in general yes, they’re only instructions for the members to pass domestic legislation.
I think even on a technicality both are law. Sorry if this was a bit padantic.
oh and yes I’m not aware of any EU legislation on admissibility of evidence. But, not really my area :/ I think there have been proposals for cross-border stuff but can’t remember what became of that. If you know any in force i’d be interested in reading that? thanks
I’m intrigued how that would work with some styles of plug that disconnect before coming out of the socket like the uk type-G plugs. Unless they’re not touching the socket itself and connecting somewhere else? I have no idea, i’m not an electrician.
This April fool’s(2nd?) video come to mind: how to disable a robot dog if it attacks you
yea…I was thinking this horrible stretch of road.
Embrase, Extend, Extinguish maybe :(
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 to justify more crackdowns.