And? Presentation of someone else's valid credentials is not fixable by any privacy-preserving mechanism. You can set an expiration date in order to rotate them, and they can be fast-rotating.
In any case, it's a moot point: the correct amount of required identification is zero.
It's not recent, and most terminals support it. You send an escape sequence to the terminal, and get back a sequence that tells you the exact background color.
I would pay a non-trivial amount for a service that 1) bought a blu-ray on my behalf, 2) ripped it to a file, 3) gave me that file to download, once, and 4) after confirming I had it, shredded the blu-ray.
I don't want to copy things and distribute them to others. I want to have one copy that keeps working indefinitely and doesn't go away or fail to follow me across systems.
Debatable. Streaming content to someone while keeping the physical media is debatably public performance. I'm not sure if anyone has tried to make the "first sale" argument yet.
You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. And even to the extent that that statement were true, it's still overreach to claim any ability to regulate companies outside their jurisdiction. It is not the responsibility of people outside their jurisdiction to help them oppress their citizens; it's just more politically safe to attempt extraterritorial enforcement than it is to put up a country-wide firewall.
Ofcom's claimed aims are simultaneously overreaching even in what they claim to want, and inconsistent with their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online". Empirically, their attempts at enforcement on non-UK entities, which should not even be able to go as far as "block UK users" (not a responsibility of a non-UK entity), don't stop with "block UK users", and also attempt to enforce "don't suggest VPNs" and "block VPNs", which are not aspects inherently associated with UK users specifically as opposed to any other country.
> their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online"
OK, so you are disputing Ofcom's: "The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users".
Feel free to show even one Ofcom demand that goes beyond service to UK users only.
As is often the case, important defense mechanisms feel awful when they arise in the course of the worst people defending the worst people. They're still important defense mechanisms, and the UK's badly misnamed "Online Safety Act" (which will make people less safe) needs to die and never come back. But still, ugh.
Are you under the impression that the current administration cares about what the law says?
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect"
It's a NIMBY policy, pulling up the ladder. It's rooted in zero-sum thinking, that can't imagine "make the pie bigger" and can only imagine a fixed-size pie where their slice is getting smaller.
Given the impact the economy has on people's lives, it's an understandable fear. There's plenty of evidence for this not being the case (and in fact evidence for the "brain drain" strategy having substantial positive impact), but getting people to let go of a fear typically requires more than just hard evidence that it's unfounded.
(There's a separate branch of that fear, that imagines immigrants to be a drain on public assistance programs, but there's plenty of evidence that that is not the case.)
(Also, as always, policy is complicated and no comment that fits on a page is going to capture all the nuance of it or facets of it.)
reply