Olives @olives@qoto.org

Geo IP is typically made for countries (although, how reliable it is there is always unclear).

It can be hilariously bad when applied to cities.

Also, what if someone's IP changes? This happens very regularly and without their intervention.

Is this an attempt at "bypassing" a control? How would you know?

If this is just for a geoblock bypass, it still poses constitutional, jurisdictional, privacy, and other headaches. It's a mess and undermines human rights.

But, even in that case, why are lawmakers constraining how a network might be designed? Where is it the state's business to get involved?

The thing with the IPs is basic community admin knowledge.

I've known people with dozens of users who have run into the "mobile network" problem. And you expect this to hold up at Facebook scale? Hah.

Another bill from people who fundamentally don't understand the Internet, although I suppose if they did, then I suspect they wouldn't have come up with this kind of "think of the children" bill in the first place.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/14/wisconsin-pushing-bill-that-requires-websites-to-treat-all-users-as-if-theyre-children/
Did you know that on a mobile network, many many people might share the same IP Address? Pretty mundane thing.

There are other ways in which IPs are unreliable and don't mean a specific person. Again, lawmakers making very shallow assumptions here...

This is the same mistake Elon made and it bit him too.

Now, this might sound radical, but usually parenting prevents minors just fooling around all night (although gotta sleep too). Nanny state much?

How do you measure "accuracy"? Is it exaggerated marketing materials? Is it artificial tests in the lab?

Also, at scale, that is still a nightmare, and can effectively lock a lot of people out (who might quite vulnerable and / or disproportionately affected).

I've seen these systems going wrong in practice. Often, that is it, you are out.

Quite a few reincarnated as an object gimmick anime. Well, if people like watching it, then that's fine.

https://reclaimthenet.org/kansas-cops-raid-small-marion-county-record Spooky.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/12/1193566170/opinion-the-taliban-is-cracking-down-on-music-and-joy wtf

Reading through these cases of civil rights violations in the U.S., it's annoying how "the smell of cannabis" (something which shouldn't even be illegal) or something to do with... the tail pipe, was that it? (this isn't good but it's a minor thing) are often used as excuses for an invasive search.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/dissecting-un-cybercrime-conventions-threat-coders-rights-defcon
Yes, there are several clear issues here.

1) Jurisdiction for someone to be punished for any crime should only apply to things which are a crime in the country someone is currently located in, otherwise this is a huge recipe for outright abuse, disproportionality, and unjust laws.

2) For an *assistance treaty*, something should be a crime in *both countries*.

3) There should be no unjust laws or disproportionate applications.

Frankly, there were already processes prior to this proposed treaty, which raises the question as to why it exists...

4) Reasserting that no laws relating to expression should be included in here (for this particular treaty). That is a recipe for abuse.

I already have a bit of a distaste for another treaty, as it doesn't stop states from implementing language which doesn't conform with the freedom of expression in their own national laws.

Please don't make the problem worse.

In other words, I have the same position as during the negotiation stage.

5) Due process. Always due process.

https://truthout.org/articles/33-years-after-the-ada-our-legal-system-still-victimizes-disabled-people/ What do you think of their proposal here to better handle mental health crises' in communities?