Online Safety Act is a bad joke
- The UK is now looking at a VPN ban. Is this feasible? This would just push VPNs underground and create a black-market economy. Forcing the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to manage this would make them block all encrypted traffic, just in case. This could potentially block cybersecurity and privacy, basically putting industries out of a job. It costs money to try and analyse traffic to detect a VPN with an expensive infrastructure and regular updates. This would push up the price of generic internet access. Some VPN providers include a service to make the traffic look like a regular HTTPS, making detection more difficult if not impossible. Some have suggested that this is all a ploy to ban end-to-end encryption so governments can spy on their population more easily. I'll leave that one for the reader to decide on. Bottom line, it might work in some cases, it won't work in others, regular companies using end-to-end encryption and a VPN would suffer. Australia take note, you are wasting your time. I know of at least one individual who gets his data via three separate streams that combine into one. Try tracking that kind of user.
- A quick follow-up on the Tanggula box. They have not restored access, so it is now equivalent to a cheap Android box. This company appears to have shut down and is being sued by DISH and Sling TV, leaving thousands of customers out in the cold. The company is based in Singapore meaning it doesn't have the protection of a similar company in China.
- Beware the Temu. I recently ordered from Temu and was sucked into the bonus whirlpool. Temu has some good and some dodgy products, but it also has a strong "push to buy more" policy. They give you bonuses, but that first requires additional purchases. I put in one order to meet the requirements but since one of the items was from a "local supplier" it wasn't enough for the overseas shipping products. These and other tricks are designed to get you to buy more goods, often ones you don't really need. Luckily, I woke up before ordering anything else. I'm sticking to my reliable AliExpress from now on. Similar products, similar prices but without all the smoke and mirrors.
- According to the gaming community, Visa and Mastercard are blocking payments for games. Yes, you read that correctly, two service providers that should be neutral have apparently bowed to pressure from an Australia advocacy group, Collective Shout, who decided that they should be the world's bastion of decency. The result is thousands of games and digital artworks were deindexed from Itch.io without warning late in July. Also caught up in this is the popular platform Steam. So apparently, Collective Shout successfully lobbied payment networks and processors to stop facilitating financial transactions from at least Steam and Itch.io until games with certain content were removed. This has affected LGBTI content, a teen romantic comedy game and even a 1920s alternative-history art book that has no sexual content.
- Games and other content have ratings for a reason. This allows people to make a choice on purchasing them and sets the rules for those who can theoretically purchase that content. An international finance institution should not be able to decide what kinds of materials is deemed acceptable for others. That is the job for individual nation states. Collective Shout achieved this with about 1,000 calls, but now a segment of the gaming community is flooding Visa and Mastercard with their own campaign. The last time groups went against the gaming community it didn't go well for them.
- A couple of days after I wrote the above, Mastercard issued the following statement on X: "Mastercard has not evaluated any game or required restrictions of any activity on game creator sites and platforms, contrary to media reports and allegations." Some claim this is a cope. I checked on Visa and in their customer service responses state that "it does not make moral judgements on legal purchases and that it processes transactions for legal commerce" and that they implement "compliance with laws and regulations globally, a commitment to protecting legal commerce, and the principle that if a transaction is legal, it will be processed". Gamers and critics have replied that Visa's and Mastercard's stated policies conflict with the observed censorship action. This is not over.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
a day ago
- Bangkok Post
Online Safety Act is a bad joke
The UK now has their Online Safety Act (OSA) and Australia is blindly following in their footsteps. In the UK it didn't take very long for the tech aware under-18s to bypass all the rules and regain access to adult content. Think about it, if China can't completely block everything do you think the UK had any chance? There were some creative solutions but the most common was a simple Virtual Private Network (VPN). In related news, some VPN companies reported a 1,400% increase in sign-ups since the OSA came into force. - The UK is now looking at a VPN ban. Is this feasible? This would just push VPNs underground and create a black-market economy. Forcing the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to manage this would make them block all encrypted traffic, just in case. This could potentially block cybersecurity and privacy, basically putting industries out of a job. It costs money to try and analyse traffic to detect a VPN with an expensive infrastructure and regular updates. This would push up the price of generic internet access. Some VPN providers include a service to make the traffic look like a regular HTTPS, making detection more difficult if not impossible. Some have suggested that this is all a ploy to ban end-to-end encryption so governments can spy on their population more easily. I'll leave that one for the reader to decide on. Bottom line, it might work in some cases, it won't work in others, regular companies using end-to-end encryption and a VPN would suffer. Australia take note, you are wasting your time. I know of at least one individual who gets his data via three separate streams that combine into one. Try tracking that kind of user. - A quick follow-up on the Tanggula box. They have not restored access, so it is now equivalent to a cheap Android box. This company appears to have shut down and is being sued by DISH and Sling TV, leaving thousands of customers out in the cold. The company is based in Singapore meaning it doesn't have the protection of a similar company in China. - Beware the Temu. I recently ordered from Temu and was sucked into the bonus whirlpool. Temu has some good and some dodgy products, but it also has a strong "push to buy more" policy. They give you bonuses, but that first requires additional purchases. I put in one order to meet the requirements but since one of the items was from a "local supplier" it wasn't enough for the overseas shipping products. These and other tricks are designed to get you to buy more goods, often ones you don't really need. Luckily, I woke up before ordering anything else. I'm sticking to my reliable AliExpress from now on. Similar products, similar prices but without all the smoke and mirrors. - According to the gaming community, Visa and Mastercard are blocking payments for games. Yes, you read that correctly, two service providers that should be neutral have apparently bowed to pressure from an Australia advocacy group, Collective Shout, who decided that they should be the world's bastion of decency. The result is thousands of games and digital artworks were deindexed from without warning late in July. Also caught up in this is the popular platform Steam. So apparently, Collective Shout successfully lobbied payment networks and processors to stop facilitating financial transactions from at least Steam and until games with certain content were removed. This has affected LGBTI content, a teen romantic comedy game and even a 1920s alternative-history art book that has no sexual content. - Games and other content have ratings for a reason. This allows people to make a choice on purchasing them and sets the rules for those who can theoretically purchase that content. An international finance institution should not be able to decide what kinds of materials is deemed acceptable for others. That is the job for individual nation states. Collective Shout achieved this with about 1,000 calls, but now a segment of the gaming community is flooding Visa and Mastercard with their own campaign. The last time groups went against the gaming community it didn't go well for them. - A couple of days after I wrote the above, Mastercard issued the following statement on X: "Mastercard has not evaluated any game or required restrictions of any activity on game creator sites and platforms, contrary to media reports and allegations." Some claim this is a cope. I checked on Visa and in their customer service responses state that "it does not make moral judgements on legal purchases and that it processes transactions for legal commerce" and that they implement "compliance with laws and regulations globally, a commitment to protecting legal commerce, and the principle that if a transaction is legal, it will be processed". Gamers and critics have replied that Visa's and Mastercard's stated policies conflict with the observed censorship action. This is not over.
Bangkok Post
2 days ago
- Bangkok Post
Perplexity AI offers Google $34.5 billion for Chrome
SAN FRANCISCO — Perplexity AI offered Google on Tuesday US$34.5 billion for its popular Chrome web browser, which the internet giant could potentially be forced to sell as part of antitrust proceedings. The whopping sum proposed in a letter of intent by Perplexity is nearly double the value of the startup, which was reportedly $18 billion in a recent funding round. "This proposal is designed to satisfy an antitrust remedy in highest public interest by placing Chrome with a capable, independent operator focused on continuity, openness, and consumer protection," Perplexity chief executive Aravind Srinivas said in the letter, a copy of which was seen by Agence France-Presse (AFP). Google is awaiting US District Court Judge Amit Mehta's ruling on what "remedies" to impose, following a landmark decision last year that said the tech titan maintained an illegal monopoly in online search. US government attorneys have called for Google to divest itself of the Chrome browser, contending that artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's dominance as the go-to window into the internet. Google has urged Mehta to reject the divestment, and his decision is expected by the end of the month. Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Perplexity's offer vastly undervalues Chrome and "should not be taken seriously," Baird Equity Research analysts said in a note to investors. Given that Perplexity already has a browser that competes with Chrome, the San Francisco-based startup could be trying to spark others to bid or "influence the pending decision" in the antitrust case, Baird analysts theorised. "Either way, we believe Perplexity would view an independent Chrome -- or one no longer affiliated with Google -- as an advantage as it attempts to take browser share," Baird analysts told investors. Google contends that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system. "Forcing the sale of Chrome or banning default agreements wouldn't foster competition," said Cato Institute senior fellow in technology policy Jennifer Huddleston. "It would hobble innovation, hurt smaller players, and leave users with worse products." Google attorney John Schmidtlein noted in court that more than 80% of Chrome users are outside the United States, meaning divestiture would have global ramifications. "Any divested Chrome would be a shadow of the current Chrome," he contended. "And once we are in that world, I don't see how you can say anybody is better off." The potential of Chrome being weakened or spun off comes as rivals such as Microsoft, ChatGPT and Perplexity put generative artificial intelligence (AI) to work fetching information from the internet in response to user queries.
Bangkok Post
15-07-2025
- Bangkok Post
Cabinet preps Financial Hub Bill draft
The cabinet is preparing to propose the draft Financial Hub Bill for parliamentary deliberation in the near future. According to Deputy Finance Minister Paopoom Rojanasakul, the Council of State has already completed its review of the draft law. The next step will be to present it to parliament for consideration in its first reading. "This draft law will establish an ecosystem that aligns with the needs of global financial companies," said Mr Paopoom. The proposed Financial Hub Act aims to elevate Thailand into a regional financial centre by overhauling the licensing and regulatory framework under the Financial Hub initiative, making it comprehensive and business-friendly. The draft law is designed to attract investment by streamlining operations and establishing a central agency to set policies that promote Thailand as a financial hub. It also lays out strategies to develop the financial industry ecosystem, including workforce development and infrastructure improvements to meet the demands of leading global financial firms. The draft law will define target businesses within the Financial Hub and establish the Office of the Regulatory and Promotion Committee for the Financial Business Hub as a One-Stop Authority (OSA). It will define qualifications for business operators, licensing procedures, investor incentives and regulatory frameworks that are efficient and aligned with international standards. The draft law approved by the cabinet contains nine chapters and 94 sections, including General Provisions, which specifies the effective date of the Financial Hub Act and relevant definitions. Chapter 1 – Regulatory and Promotion Committee for the Financial Business Hub, which outlines the structure and authority of the committee responsible for comprehensive oversight of the Financial Hub, including setting business guidelines, issuing licences, inspecting operations and revoking licences. Chapter 2 – Office of the Committee, which establishes the OSA to provide one-stop services and facilitate businesses in licensing and receiving incentives. Chapter 3 – The director, who specifies qualifications and the appointment process for the executive managing the Office. Chapter 4 – Licensing of Target Businesses, defining types and scopes of businesses eligible for licences, and the characteristics of legal entities seeking to operate within the Financial Hub. Chapter 5 – Promotion of Incentives, outlining the benefits and incentives available to businesses established under the Financial Hub framework. Chapter 6 – Supervision of Businesses under Promotion, establishing regulatory standards for businesses within the Financial Hub, covering financial institutions, securities firms and insurance businesses, aligned with current regulatory practices. Chapter 7 – Officials, granting officials the authority to inspect the operations of businesses within the hub. Chapters 8 and 9 – Administrative Sanctions and Criminal Penalties, setting forth penalties for non-compliance with the Act's rules and conditions.
