CrashBoxNat

Every solution to a problem, begins with a cup of Tea.

[International Cyber Digest @IntCyberDigest]

A legal study commissioned by the Dutch government has concluded that forcing universal age verification on all users would be disproportionate and clash with the fundamental rights of both children and adults.

The researchers, at the University of Amsterdam, say privacy and freedom of information are at stake, that even the strictest checks are easily bypassed with VPNs or an adult's help, and that the EU's Digital Services Act already requires platforms to make age assurance effective, so rushing to mandate more is risky.

This matters because the Dutch coalition wants a European minimum age of 15 with "privacy-friendly" verification. The study is a caution to every government treating ID checks as the fix, the same fight is playing out in many countries right now.

[Big Brother Watch @BigBrotherWatch]

❌We do not consent to being scanned by facial recognition cameras

Police are using this Orwellian mass surveillance tech in #KensingtonAndChelsea and #TowerHamlets boroughs today

Sign our petition to #StopFacialRecognition⤵️
https://t.co/9do8SIF81t

[Peter @MePeterNicholls]

HS2 was supposed join all these cities by high speed links, increasing capacity, giving lines back to local services and freight. THIS needs to be built. The original plan.

[NonstopEurotrip.com 🇺🇦 @nonstopeurotrip]

I could have saved them the £2m enquiry. Remove ramp before train departs.

[Slackkejakke @slackkejakke]

A million 1776/Boston Tea Party jokes on here but one sticker says ‘Make America Great Britain Again’ and suddenly it’s all gone too far

[Labour Digital Rights Network @LabDRN]

We strongly back @OpenRightsGroup's open letter to @AndyBurnhamGM demanding a complete reset on digital policy.

This is a make-or-break moment for Labour. Our next leader cannot double down on Keir Starmer's digital authoritarianism. It is time to scrap the unworkable under-16s social media ban, ditch the proposed national digital ID scheme, and halt the expansion of state surveillance.

But this is not just about what we oppose; we have a massive opportunity to use technology for the common good and build a progressive future.

To do that, we must reclaim our digital sovereignty. For too long, we have allowed unaccountable tech monopolies and surveillance firms like Palantir to control our government systems and siphon wealth out of our communities.

Instead of punishing users with digital exile, Labour must tackle Big Tech's power directly. We need publicly-owned, privacy-first digital infrastructure that prioritises the social value of technology over the extraction of our personal data.

Read the full letter ⤵️
https://t.co/XRDuxEmp0I

[Paul Walsh @Paul__Walsh]

Here’s a little online child safety present for all the dads celebrating Father’s Day.

A way to protect your children without forcing everyone else to have their face scanned to use the internet. 😘

[Paul Walsh @Paul__Walsh]

We’re now living in a world where some people want governments to take over responsibilities that belong to parents and schools.

You need a licence to own a dog in some countries. Perhaps people should need one before having children if they’re unwilling to raise them.

[SPEAK UK @speakukorg]

Starmer may be going, but there's no indication that there will be a change in direction when it comes to free speech.

There should be, the current legislation is a failure.

[Christina Tasty @ChristinaTasty]

Wanting media that can be censored by the state to be broadcast on the internet that will be ID locked by the state.

So this is how democracy dies. With a bunch of terrible parents going "it's about time".

[Mrs Ronald Raccoon @CentralReserva9]

Remember all the reports of the damage & effect on under 16 yr olds when they suffered a yr of lockdown & Tier 4 Regs.?
Experts claimed social media was their savior in being able to keep in touch with friends.
Now Starmer wants to take that away from them

[Together @Togetherdec]

⚠️ A “social media ban” sounds like it’s about children.

But the systems behind it would turn age checks into ID checks for everyone.

What starts as age checks would become a system where ordinary people are identified, tracked and monitored just to find information, speak, share and take part online.

Don’t let age checks become Digital ID by the back door.

The open internet has given ordinary people the power to learn, create, organise, challenge those in power and speak freely.

That freedom is now under threat.

Support the call:
https://t.co/dMUDPn29eI

#DontIDTheInternet

[Erin Ekins (she/her) @QueerlyAutistic]

The people smugly gloating that young people will just have to 'find something else to do' in response to the social media bans are usually the exact same people who seethe with anger and make reports about 'loitering' whenever they have to share public spaces with teenagers.

[Preston Byrne @prestonjbyrne]

The Royal Society for Blind Children and the National Deaf Children's Society have both come out against the Starmer social media ban.

"Internet bad" is a trendy, upper-middle-class opinion for people with extracurricular budgets that ignores legions of people who rely on it.

[Politics UK @PolitlcsUK]

🚨 NEW: YouTube has hit out at the UK's social media ban for under-16s

"YouTube is a vital resource for young people, educators and parents. Blanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less safe services"

[Labour Digital Rights Network @LabDRN]

👤Who could have guessed?

Instead of holding tech monopolies accountable, this flawed policy will force the British public to hand over sensitive biometric face scans just to use the internet.

We should be dismantling surveillance capitalism and breaking up data monopolies, not feeding Big Tech even more of our deeply personal information.

Read more ⤵️
https://t.co/sRwYx9nNGO

[Together @Togetherdec]

Social media ban "unenforceable" and "incredibly high risk" - online safety charity

"This looks like policy making being done on the back of a fag packet and frankly that is incredibly high risk when we are talking about children's safety. We should be following the evidence" - Andy Burrows of Molly Rose Foundation

Even online safety campaigners don't want this and say it is irresponsible @Keir_Starmer @uklabour

https://t.co/xQlrGGBquY

[Glenn Meder @GlennMeder]

8/ Meanwhile, you cannot speak freely either.

Online child safety laws do not just restrict what children can see. They restrict what anyone can say in spaces where children might be present.

You write about government overreach. Post it online. The platform flags it. Reason: Content may be accessed by minors. Harmful misinformation. Account suspended pending review.

You were not lying. You were not threatening anyone. You were expressing a perspective the system does not approve. And because a child might read it, your speech is now prohibited.

Freedom of speech dies when every platform becomes a children's space and every unapproved idea becomes child endangerment.

[Glenn Meder @GlennMeder]

7/ Think about what this does to a generation of children growing up in this system.

They learn very early that curiosity has consequences. That asking the wrong questions gets you flagged. That searching for unapproved information creates a permanent record that will follow you into adulthood.

So they stop searching. They stop questioning. They accept whatever the pre-approved sources tell them. Because searching for truth is not worth the risk.

This is not education. This is conditioning. Training an entire generation to stop seeking truth because the system punishes anyone who tries.