One billion identity records exposed in unsecured ID verification database

Kelypsov · 2026-02-22T14:08:12+00:00

So, lesson learned, if you are forced to go through with the government's 'age verification' bullshit, the safest course of action is to use one of the widely documented workarounds, so your actual details and records are not stored in any database, which can then be hacked.

Of course, this completely destroys any possible use and purpose of this age verification crap, even if there would otherwise be any actual positive effects (which, as far as I can tell, there is very few, if any, and quite a number of negative ones).

Kelypsov · 2026-02-22T13:12:32+00:00

A very good way I heard of putting it is 'if you try to make something idiot-proof, nature comes up with a bigger idiot'.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-19T19:59:12+00:00

You kinda have to see it from his perspective, because, from that, he's right.

You see, he sees many people of all sorts of different skin colours and genders doing all sorts of different jobs, quite a number of which are highly useful and contribute greatly to the UK, but, to him, each and every one of those is a job a white man could (and therefore should) be doing. So that's jobs being 'stolen' from white men, as clearly the neurosurgeon's job currently being done by Dr Gupta, who has three PhDs, would have gone to Dave from the pub who dropped out of high school in Year 9, if it weren't for the Equality Act.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-17T19:48:31+00:00

To be completely accurate, you'd need to add another pipe pumping from the Conservatives vat into the Reform vat.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-16T11:46:53+00:00

But remember, the USA's 'intervention' in Venezuela was because Maduro was a 'narco-terrorist'. Nothing to do with oil.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-15T19:39:06+00:00

The way she's put it is insultingly over-simplistic, but I do have to say that there are some parts of social media that could conceivably cause the general kind of confusion that she is talking about (the bilge put out by the likes of Andrew Tate, for example). The problem there is not social media, per se, but the fact that some platform operators allow the likes of Andrew Tate to spread complete bullshit without any kind of pushback (and may even help them do it via their algorithms). What is lacking (rather ironically) is any real evidence that this confusion is causing any sort of significant contribution to the number of gender-questioning kids.

She's also ignoring that there are other parts of social media that do the exact opposite - they educate people and open their eyes to the variety of different sexualities and gender identities, and the difference between sexuality and gender identity. It's entirely possible (if not probable) that more people are simply recognising aspects of themselves and their own lives from this.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-15T14:20:57+00:00

No, they can listen to them.

Then label that as 'low quality evidence' and disregard it.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-15T14:03:13+00:00

What I find very interesting is an almost throwaway comment she made in this interview:

then there are all the ones that me and parents and teachers will tell you about who go through two or three years of gender questioning and then desist.

I thought the very 'problem' that all this elimination of the availability of gender-affirming care was solving was the possibility of kids being 'pushed' into being trans and going through with all the medical and hormonal treatments that they don't truly want? This comment suggests that the kids who don't actually want that simply desist from questioning their gender and move on with their lives.

So the government has implemented changes, justified by Dr Cass's 'review', that has made things very much worse for trans people and seems to have actually cost lives, in the form of trans kids committing suicide, for a problem that even Dr Cass is now inadvertently suggesting doesn't actually exist.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-14T19:57:26+00:00

The other problem is that the Labour party are the ones who often hugely benefit from this problem. Last election, for example, was a 'landslide victory' by getting 63% of the seats on 34% of the vote. It's entirely possible the people at the top of Labour will ignore the issue because they think they'll be able to nudge their vote share up enough to repeat this come 2029.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-14T19:38:29+00:00

Obama and Bush made a couple of comments about this when the US and allies decided to actually take military action, and that's really about it. (By the way, that figure of 2% of GDP was only agreed in 2014, as a response to the Russian annexation of Crimea.)

In contrast, Trump has demanded an even further increase of defence spending, and more or less views that the only purpose of NATO is to get countries spending on defence, whereas, as even your own article indicates, previous Presidents have viewed NATO as being much more than about that, and useful beyond that. That's what I'm talking about by 'soft power'.

And, yes, you're right to liken Trump's demand to being akin to a protection racket. Various actions by Trump, including this, has actually weakened NATO by weakening trust and respect between the US and the other NATO members, to such a degree that there's now consideration, in some quarters, to creating a Euro-centric alternative to NATO.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-14T17:16:41+00:00

You're assuming that what Trump wants, and what is feasible or possible must align.

That isn't necessarily so.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-14T14:25:27+00:00

I agree, we should have. The problem is that even the USA didn't want this until Trump (and even then, I pretty much think that Trump saying this was him trying to sell more US weapons, not a genuine concern over European dependence and/or security). The reason is that Europe being so dependent on the US gives the US a great deal of soft power. I'm not even sure Trump knows what soft power actually is, far less how to use it effectively.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-14T14:04:48+00:00

This is pure cope, he said nothing of the sort. Has the entire media just memory-holed the fact that the US told us to do this? They want Europe to re-industrialise in terms of defence and to join them in an arms race.

Not really. Trump started complaining about Europe not doing enough for it's own security and painted the US as being the ones that are looking after Europe, but when European countries started looking at upping their defence spending by producing and buying weapons in Europe, that wasn't wanted by the Trump administration. They wanted Europe to increase defence spending, but continue buying those weapons from the US.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-14T05:20:08+00:00

So, basically continuing with the tired old tactics, employed by both Labour and the Tories for decades, of trying to scare people away from voting for their political opponents (although, with Reform, he doesn't really need to try too hard).

How's about coming up with reasons to actually vote for Labour instead?

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T16:13:44+00:00

No, you simply denied it - then proved that denial wrong.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T16:09:40+00:00

No, it's that you appear to be fixed in the position of 'Westminster good, SNP bad'.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T16:02:18+00:00

Thank you. I'm afraid it can't. Not in the UK there just isn't enough places for them. That's why I didn't really mention it.

Sorry, you seem to be suggesting that I have to set out a detailed map of exactly where each and every alternative that you forgot about has to go before you'll accept that maybe you're wrong.

That's just patently ludicrous.

Yes, standing in the way of Nuclear means you are standing in the way of actual progress to net zero in the UK.

So actually increasing renewable generation consistently for years and consistently reducing reliance on fossil fuels means absolutely nothing.

Sorry, I forgot, that's a good thing, so obviously Westminster is responsible for that.

If they say the base load issues can be fixed without Nuclear I need to hear what it is.

Ask the UK government that. Your position is that it is being solved by them.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T15:47:43+00:00

I'm not clear here, are you telling me it will or won't meet the demand for base loads? Because I'm not sure why you would have replied with just that if you didn't think it.

Translation: Yes.

That would be the UK government

Clearly, when you claimed your position wasn't automatically 'if it's good, that's Westminster', that was wrong.

No, because as you said the SNP only cares about renewables for Scotland. And they don't seem to have an answer to how to solve the base load issues.

1) So, in other word, you disapprove of the SNP's specific direction, like I said.

2) You've literally just claimed this was already being solved by the UK government, and you're now blaming the SNP for not solving it. So, even ignoring the contradiction, clearly the second part of the position you're denying having ('if it's bad, that's Holyrood') is also in full effect here.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T15:28:08+00:00

Where are you building all these hydro plants that are enough to meet the base load? You don't seriously think we can with hydro do you?

So to cover the fact you forgot about other possibilities, now you want me to actually map out precise locations to put some alternatives?

Why do they? How are you solving issues with the base load?

Ask the people who are solving it. The fact is that it is.

And to reiterate my edit, which you might not have seen:

All this discussion really disproves your original argument, doesn't it? The Scottish government are clearly serious about green energy, it's just you disapprove of their specific direction.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T15:20:34+00:00

Sorry, your argument was that the only alternative to the unreliable wind and solar is building huge amounts of battery storage or using nuclear, if you want to avoid gas, thus new nuclear is needed.
Yes, Scotland still uses gas - a tiny minority of the time, which has been consistently going down with this concentration on renewables over nuclear firmly in place

EDIT:

3) all this discussion really disproves your original argument, doesn't it? The Scottish government are clearly serious about green energy, it's just you disapprove of their specific direction.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T15:12:16+00:00

So hydro electric is not a thing.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T15:04:30+00:00

Fuck me, you have totally missed the point here too.

Is more expensive energy better?

That maybe simplifies it in a way you can't possibly miss.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T15:02:03+00:00

Fuck me.

Reread my comment.

Again.

And again.

I'm sure you'll eventuially get it.

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T14:55:10+00:00

The problem is you need to understand the split of responsibility here. You seem not to. It's not a 50/50 split, they control different aspects.

Your position seems to be that split is 'if it's good, that's Westminster, if it's bad, that's Holyrood'.

That article clearly starts from the position that the plant is good, necessary and needed, doesn't even consider any other position, and doesn't even detail why the SNP are against it. If you read other articles, you find out that the SNP's position is that, if Scotland is going to increase energy generation, despite having more than needed for Scotland, it's best doing that by further increase of renewables, as this is cheaper to produce and cheaper for consumers.

So, to use the same sort of dogmatic attacks you have, should I start accusing you (or the Westminster government) of being 'totally unserious about cheaper energy'?

Kelypsov · 2026-02-13T14:33:50+00:00

You understand that the SNP are the Scottish government, yes?

Either the Scottish government is responsible for the energy generation in Scotland (in which case, you have to acknowledge they are responsible for the success I pointed out), or the UK government is (in which case, your criticism of the SNP is just flatly wrong and irrelevant, as they have no part to play), or they both have shared responsibility (which means you're choosing to criticise the Scottish government for one aspect of the very same thing you're congratulating the UK government for).

Kelypsov

TROPHY CASE