Slashdot Mirror
UK's Tories Promise To Enact Age Limits For Viewing Online Porn
An anonymous reader writes with this news from the UK: The Conservatives say they will force hardcore pornography websites to put in place age-restriction controls or face being shut down if they win the election. The culture secretary, Sajid Javid, said the party would act to ensure under-18s were locked out of adult content after a recent Childline poll found nearly one in 10 12-13 year olds were worried they were addicted and 18% had seen shocking or upsetting images. Experts welcomed the move – targeted at both UK-based and overseas websites – but warned it would take hard work to implement in practice.
If somebody want to watch porn, he will say "yes I have 18" to any question. This is a stupid waste of everyone time. Don't vote this retarded people even if you agree with their ideas.
Do any of your politicians have even the smallest clue how the internet works? Trying to age restrict porn will be as effective as a law banning the sun from rising tomorrow,
...a recent Childline poll found nearly one in 10 12-13 year olds were worried they were addicted and 18% had seen shocking or upsetting images...
In other news, around 10% of parents apparently have no idea how to supervise their 12-13 year old children when they go on-line. Maybe we should treat the problem, not one particular symptom? Age-checks on porn sites aren't going to stop those same inadequately supervised children from being groomed for other things, or subject to hate attacks by classmates at school, or any number of other threats that come with an open communication system like the Internet.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Good luck with that. It's a well known fact that underage individuals will answer truthfully to questions about their age and that they would never consider swiping an adult's credit card for age verification. Never mind the large number of sites based outside of the UK that could give bog-all about some idiotic local laws, or even those sites that have a mix of adult and non-adult content.
Parliament should really stop thinking of the kids.
Mostly because of the pedophilia scandals, but also in general as well.
...like the increase in sexual assaults against woman and children that correlate to the introduction of laws regarding possession of extreme porn and the targeting of child porn on Darknets.
Check the dates and the stats, the trends are crystal clear.
Asking all websites in different countries on the planet to implement legal age verification is completely unrealistic. It takes too much work and duplicates that work on all the websites.
What's easy to do is ask websites to add metas about the content. A standard about the metas and their keywords could be established but we already have something used by media companies when publishing movies on DVD, etc.
The "locking down" side should come from the browsers themselves. It's easy to ask international companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft to add "child locks" to their browsers, in fact I think some of them already have something similar.
And while the idea of asking all websites to put locks in place is dumb for the reasons mentioned above, I'm glad they're thinking about locking down adult content instead of trying to block it all for everyone.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
nearly one in 10 12-13 year olds were worried they were addicted
I would say this is more likely to be a problem with their social / religious upbringing making them think that it's messed up to want to look at porn more than a couple times per week.
Also, feel free to make as many kid-friendly whitelists as you want but proposals to rate/blacklist the entire thing are horribly insidious. Why are we still falling for this old scam? In addition to being insanely hard to do effectively, this sort of censorship is ALWAYS stealthily aimed at adults, not children. Case in point: NC-17 ratings for movies and AO ratings for videogames. Both are on their face completely redundant (R rating and M+ rating), but their real use is to prevent certain content from being produced through self-censorship pressure by retailers/theaters refusing to carry the highest rating. The analogue here is going to be ISPs first offering opt-out for censored internet, then opt-in for uncensored internet, and then "hey, why should the government being subsidizing the with-porn ISP plans?" and boycotts and cheap political grandstanding and endless tedious arguments about what constitutes porn vs. art vs. education.
A genuine and forthright proposal would be "Here, if you're worried use whitelist XYZ and keep your kids off of the real the internet. " If we don't want kids driving cars then the solution is to stop them from doing so, not to pass legislation to install giant Nerf bumpers on everything and enact a new nationwide speed limit of 20 mph. Proposals to examine and decide whether to blacklist every goddamn page on the internet should be instantly recognized as a very clumsy attempt to control adults.
... who could have foreseen that it would be the tweens of Britain who would finally burn Parliament to the ground?
Given the previous clueless comments on tech matters that have been made by the UK government I'm inclined to discount this being a case of "yes, we know it's stupid, but it'll win us some votes (from those equally clueless) and we'll forget about it after the election". Nope, the real motivation here seems to be in the bit Slashdot skipped over, despite it being right there on the byline of TFA: "ensure under-18s were locked out of adult content via an independent regulator with power to compel ISPs to block sites". Oh yes, it's the old "let's censor the Internet" meme again, only this time it appears they've at least learnt from their previous mistakes and placed all the financial burden of doing the impossible and somehow blocking the vast number of sites that won't comply with this legislation firmly on the ISPs with fines if they don't co-operate.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Except we are all born on january 1st, 19xx.
but idiots do.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
This is the country that has age control on alcohol-related websites. It's worse than useless. Go to any alcohol-related site in the UK, for example the Highland Park website, and you have to enter your birth date. Wow, I'll bet no 13-year-old ever thought about adding 10 years to his/her age.
All this does is annoy the actual customers; it's not actually useful. Anyway, come to think of it, isn't the government's job at all. I kind of thought (speaking as a parent) that it was the parents' job to know what the kids are doing.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The best part is them claiming they'll shut down overseas porn sites which don't comply by force.
So this means that either the City of London police are going to start seizing domains without due process, which is something they're fucking great at, or the UK is going to start blocking porn sites left right and center.
This is going to be amusing.
Tories wrote:
FTFY
I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
When people of average levels of intelligence and critical thinking capacity become parents, they also experience a sort of "puritanical enlightenment." It becomes obvious to them that not only should they clean up their act for the sake of their kids, but they should make the whole world clean up its act for the sake of their kids (and kids everywhere).
Promises like this, however misguided they may be, win votes from people like this. And people like this are the majority.
... the run-up to elections is called, "the silly season."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
would be more successful.
British culture has always seemed the most paranoid in the world about children and sex. I once found a website claiming that the world's most innocent cartoons that have young girls in them (for instance "Kiki's delivery service" - and no I'm not joking) should be banned because a pedophile could gain enjoyment from watching the girl in it.. It was a British blog, but I could tell that before checking because of the insane paranoia.
But, here's the odd part, they're also the country least successful in preventing the sexual exploitation of children. Look up "grooming gangs" in a google news search. They're paranoid about this stuff, but not willing to confront Pakistani or Somali or whatever immigrants over actual abuse.
These old farts should be capable of controlling their mature libdo, and
they already should have a wealth of fantasy to draw upon.
We shouldn't deprive the poor children that need a safe outlet.
Rule Britannia!!!
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore So basically, the Tories believe 12 year olds are too stupid to find directions on the 'net for finding and using a proxy in another country so that they can access porn without age restrictions? Of do they believe they are going to force every server in every country to implement age restrictions?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
There should definitely be systems in place to protect developing minds from porn. We could even give them a snappy name like "Pornographic Age-Restriction Enforcing Network Tool." Really a shame that nothing like this exists in the 21st century.
Rob
That's contemporary politics for you. As long as voters have as little clue about technology as politicians have, politicians who know zero about the things they decide about are allowed to stay in office. In an enlightened society, such a suggestion would alone be enough to ensure political suicide of whoever came up with the idea. Because voters would know that it's not only impossible but simply idiotic to even try something like that. At the very least the ONLY way to do this would be to impose massive restrictions on the internet altogether.
But as long as their voters are dumber than they are, they should be ok.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Don't worry, that's basically what this law will ensure. Anyone past 55 will be not only know too little about computers to get around the (certainly mandatory) block, but would also be ashamed to ask for aid to get porn, while the average child, if necessary with the aid of his school peers (for whom it is a huge gain of "street cred" if they know how to fight not only "da man" but of course parental restrictions), will have no problem getting around anything our esteemed polidorks can come up with.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...is because not every website is subject to UK law. They can pass whatever laws they want but it will not affect any website where UK law does not apply. I'd not be so fast to ascribe this to ignorant politicians though. The cynical side of me sees this as a way that the politicians can claim that they are strong on family values without actually doing anything meaningful that might alienate some voters.
I recomend the government makes a list of all the porn sites worldwide (rated by quality), and make a browser plugin that blocks those sites (based on age). The parents can download the blocker onto their kids computers in those countries that care about this. This will achieve two major (and very worth while) porn goals at the same time, with the first being to effectively block most porn from the computers of kids who's parents actually care.
Anyone past 55 will be not only know too little about computers to get around the (certainly mandatory) block...
Back when I was 55, I was doing senior tech support for an ISP. That was about a decade ago. If/when I want some pr0n, I don't need any help in finding it, TYVM. You might want to rethink some of your stereotypes.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
IQ limit before being allowed in government
Dear UK politicians,
Please stop screwing our internet. If you don't like it, just make your own, it's easy and the infrastructure exist.
Thanks, the real world.
In all seriousness, if they want to create a "curated" internet, sanctioned by the state, they can. No need to bother the sane people around with their craziness.
I guess I'm flogging a dead horse, but where was all the outcry about violence? Hunger games was predicated on "lets have teenager kill other teenagers for sport". Yet the rating on that movie (and I'm sure the books, etc) were such that teenagers were encouraged to see it.
Fortunately, on the internet no-one knows who you are, yet everyone thinks they do.
You remember the Usenet, it was the Internet before WWW.
Before Gore gave public access to the masses it was frequented by bright people and the place you went for answers. It's still around; p0rn for those who don't wish to subscribe to a site or wish to pay for it, and rivals thepiratebay in the files available.
I've never frequented a sex site, there's been no need, and when someone has a disagreement with a sex site they normally post everything they purchased to the Usenet (many times I've seen this).
It's not as active as it used to be and the sites are being used for items not meant for it. Alt.binaries.astronomy has not one pix of a star, planet, or even the sky, it's become a movie repository.
Just saying there is no age check for the Usenet, no passwords and for me I can't access it with SSL so nothing that says it's me accessing it other than an IP address (with an open WiFi channel it could be anybody), and there are still some very active areas.
I do try to steer people to the Usenet as they just don't have a clue what's available, if not for files be it pix, videos, or utilities, for the support available in many established groups for just about any subject. I've spent years in a Usenet group just helping people out, while no subject was off limits almost all queries were computer related.
Yes, Google Groups has pretty well taken over (and archived) the Usenet text groups, yet most of the messages to those groups via Google Groups doesn't make it to the Usenet (greatly reduces the spam and the stupid) - and not a one of the binary groups do they have a hand in.
This won't work at all, children are smarter than their parents when it comes to viewing content on the internet, but... if .xxx domains were introduced and porn sites were forced to use only those then parents could block the .xxx domains altogether stopping kids getting anywhere near, then it would be back to page 3 of the sun and finding porno mags... ahaha
It is forbidden to sell pornographic magazine to people under 18. Easy accessible porn to 12-13 year old was only in the case they found the porn stash of older persons. It was very very rare to get real porn magazine and I never seen any bondage or harder stuff until I was much older, the 2 one I remember seeing were "memorable" events and it was vanilla sex. That is the problem the net offer : easy accessibility to hard stuff (note I did not say hard core, I meant here the genre, like bondage etc... Normal vanilla sex should not really shock a 12-13 that much. SM play or gagging or fake rape, or way underage looking model or bestiality etc... That is a definitively different story).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Having read TFA (yeah, I know... ), there are a number of questions that arise:
1) What the heck are they smoking in Tory HQ?
2) Did any of them consider running this by someone from even the party's own tech-support, let alone anyone form the Met or (for bonus points) GCHQ?
3) TFA states that this will apply to "Hardcore" porn. Who will be the arbiter of what constitutes hardcore?
4) Is their handling of websites selling POMs (Prescription-Only Meds) without a prescription to be considered a suitable yardstick against which to gauge their handling of this "new threat" (i.e. you can expect it to take between 2 and 5 years for them to have access to the site blocked or the site shut down (even where the domains are uk-registered, where the servers are UK-based, where the domain owners have already been convicted numerous times for the same activity, and where a substantial portion of the legwork in identifying the hosts has already been done by the person reporting it to the MHRA))?
5) Are they going to declare VPNs to be illegal, as they can be used to trivially circumvent geo-blocking (or are they really suggesting that the websites be forced to comply with this scheme even for connections originating outside the UK?)?
6) How will they classify sites where porn is not their core business, but where there is porn-like content?
7) Why can't we just encourage parents to actually parent? People keep on moaning about the "nanny state", but then expect the state to act like a surrogate parent to their kids (whilst at the same time, creating rules that make it increasingly difficult for schools to enforce anything remotely resembling discipline).
8) How about we propose an alternative solution that it took me all of two minutes to think of (and I haven't had a full dose of caffeine yet, so there's probably a few holes in it!)? This suggestion will take some changes to commonly deployed technology to make it work, but the changes aren't anything that hasn't been achievable with existing technology for years (just not in most home environments). Mandate that residential internet equipment be configured either with dual WAN ports, or with the single WAN port capable of carrying up to two subscriptions, and with at least two WiFi network interfaces. The idea is that a residential subscription provide two "streams", one open to the 'net as normal, the other carrying a filtered internet feed (much like the internet access commonly used in schools). One subscription goes to each WiFi network (and, optionally, segregation of the LAN Ethernet ports). This could be achieved using technology already trivial to obtain (although would require reconfiguration at both the ISP end, and either a substantial rewrite of the firmware or deployment of more "capable" kit to customers).
Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
For non UK readers.... there's an election coming up.
This time there's a chance it will go beyond a two horse race (whether or not that's a good thing given the parties involved is down to personal opinion).
The major parties want to look for something to differentiate themselves and will jump on any bandwagon going to appease the more rabid elements of the press. Manufacturing a major scare and then swooping in like a superhero to fix it is just custom & practice.
I fully expect this to evaporate like most politicians' promises do within 48 hours of the results being posted. It will go from a mandate to a target then a goal then an aspiration just as fast as any other promise.
Bigger issues (like rewarding friends and slagging off the opposition) will rule the day.
I can make this prediction whichever party/parties come into power
Don't worry about how this would work in practice, technical [in]feasibilities, government/parent roles & responsibilities... they'll become irrelevant sideshows soon enough.
Cynical? me ?
is some guy's avatar of a homer face superimposed over a vagina
unintentional, but I honestly thought it was a paper bag at first.
That question brought back long-gone memories (inc. song). Born 1986..
Damn, of course the one person who doesn't fit the profile has to speak up...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This could easily be done by ISPs. They provide one channel which is safe for under 18s, no pornography, and people with children will be required by law to connect their children's only to that channel, the other channel will be the normal internet, which requires a password to access, an individual password for each subscriber of that ISP (which would be the parent, of course, not the child.)
The government can then set up the child safe channel by vetting websites that are allowed onto it. If they miss out half of the internet, does it really matter? I'm sure there are hundreds of Slashdot cretins on here who would mod me down for daring to QUESTION the official figure of six million Jews being killed during the Holocaust, yet you think it's just great for children to look at videos of pornography?
Wouldn't it be GOOD news if somebody proved that six millions Jews DIDN'T die during the 'Holocaust', and that it was just propaganda? Would that not be a GOOD thing? LOL. You can't even face reality and want to act as censors (the first dick to mod me down proves it), yet you want six year olds to be able to watch the most degenerate JEW produced filthy you can imagine. I'm sure it will have no effect on them whatsoever. (Sarcasm)
The internet interprets STUPIDITY as damage and laughs out loud at it. Then it routes around it.
Honestly, what's needed is for porn sites to have a disclaimer as follows:
This site is intended for viewing by people who are at least of legal-age to consume the content in whatever one or more jurisdictions have authority to restrict it. Similarly, all images and/or depictions of people are of people who are at least as old as the minimum required age in whatever one or more jurisdictions have authority to make rules about how old someone has to be to have such photos taken and distributed. If the minimum age goes up, then all models were at least whatever the new age is after the new rule goes into effect, despite any appearance to the contrary. FURTHERMORE: if you are NOT of legal age to view this material, which by viewing it you have certified that you ARE, FOR GOD'S SAKE, DON'T TELL ANYONE YOU'RE VIEWING IT, YOU LITTLE KNOT-HEAD! Or the PTB will make rules making it harder for you to view it in the future, or others to view it after you, so don't FUCK things up for them just because you're a little pussy and can't handle your porn!
I think that if anyone ever does succeed at something like this on any substantial scale, it will simply cause a new form of internet to rise and take the damaged internet's place. Someone should tell these morons that they even have the internet in CUBA, in the form of downloads to flash-drives that are passed around via SneakerNet. Even the locked-down Cuban regime isn't capable of stopping the flow of information.
In other words, "they can't stop the signal, Mal... they can never stop..."
the Daily mails website is infamous for soft porn pics of celebs
Well they don't have the balls to make them use the XXX domain. And that is not censorship its regulation, To me the XXX domain is no different then magazines stands putting brown wrappers over playboy or hardcore pornography magazines.
Jack of all trades,master of none
The question is always what sort of age-restriction controls.
Enter age vs expensive prove you are who you say you are.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Tories clearly worried about losing what they see as their rightful place - being the biggest wankers in the UK.