UK Gov't Launches Public Consultation On Porn-Site Age Checks (bbc.co.uk)

An anonymous reader writes with news from the BBC that the UK government has launched a publc consultation regarding plans to mandate age checks on pornographic websites. According to the article, The proposals follow a Conservative Party manifesto commitment that "all sites containing pornographic material" must check that users are over 18. Internet providers, charities, academics and others will be asked to contribute to the consultation. ... In the consultation document, the government proposes that the checks should apply to content that would receive — if formally classified — an 18 or R18 rating from the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). "We are keen to hear from parents, schools, child protection experts, the pornography industry, internet service providers and online platforms that provide access to pornographic content," the consultation document explained. As part of the plans, the government intends to establish a new regulatory framework to enforce compliance with any rules that are made law.

Comments

Keen to hear?

[houstonbofh]

How about this... Watch your own damn kids and quit trying to child proof my world.

Re:Keen to hear?

[wvmarle]

Disagree. A parent can't always hover over their children - heck, a parent shouldn't. I'm happy my 9-yo is finally able to get home from school by himself (one stop on the train and a 15-minute walk), very good for his self-confidence. What he's doing out there exactly, I can't tell, but I do trust him to not start smoking, drinking, etc, and to otherwise stay out of trouble.

There are plenty of other places where age checks are in place, such as bars, amusement centres (for playing computer games), casinos, liquor shops, etc. Those checks are done usually by someone sitting at the door and looking at your face, and asking for proof of age if you look too young. Sure, it's imperfect, but it does put a bit of a brake on under age drinking without parental knowledge and other stuff.

Internet should be similar, but the big problem is how those age checks could possibly be done without serious privacy invasion. The real-life checks are highly anonymous. You look too young, you're out. You look old enough, you're in. You think you're old enough but look too young, show an ID, and you're in - where the ID is not copied or recorded or so. It doesn't work like that online. Everyone can lie about their age (click the "I'm over 18 and it's legal to watch this crap in my neck of the woods" button) when it's totally anonymous. So probably a login of sorts is required, and even so there is no way to check one's age without extensive personal details and cross checking them with official government records - and even so, how can you see whether those personal details belong to the person providing them?

Re:Keen to hear?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are responsible for the behaviour of your children in your own house. Allowing a minor unfiltered access to the Internet is not "confidence boosting", it's a tragedy waiting to happen. It's easily fixed with existing software too, just install a filter or set up a white list. Not much effort, so much reward.

In addition: the checks themselves will be an age check. How are you to prove your age online? Are they going to scan your passport or drivers license or are they going to ask you for your date of birth. Any person who is interested in looking at pornography is easily old enough to realize that a simple lie will get them to where they want to be.

The alternative of course, as you said, is to have some system of citizen registration. "Show an ID where the ID is not copied or recorded"... even before computers were prevalent (making forgeries a far more trivial matter) documents and papers have been faked... with ease. You seem to actually want the government to regulate what is accessible online via a registered database of individuals?!

You are clearly mad. I can't even begin to say how terrifying that willing submission of rights is. For your own sake read some Orwell.

Then, at the end of all this effort for dubious reward... what about the porn sites hosted outside of the UK? That's only most of them that won't have to comply with any of these laws.

So as we come full circle we realize: the only effective way to keep kids safe online is with with a little parental responsibility, since no law passed will ever affect all the porn sites and no system of identity proof will be anything short of privacy destroying. Instead of making demands from the powers that be to keep us safe how about we do it ourselves so it gets done properly?

but pornography is the purpose.

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet was created by the US defense department as a decentralized, fault tolerant network to ensure that in the event of a nuclear war, American soldiers would have continued access to pornography.

Old enough

[Boronx]

My experience is that those who are interested in looking at porn are old enough to look at it.

So Many Problems

[mentil]

Wow let me list the ways age verification is a bad idea:

*Loss of anonymity for visitors. Someone will be collecting data on what actual people are visiting what actual sites. Yes, if you pay for site access with a credit/debit card you're giving up your (pseudo)anonymity, but payment with bitcoin/burner cards is possible, as well as access to free sites. If the verification has to be done through a central authority, who wants to bet the govt. will have access to that list, and it will be a huge target for black hats.

*Porn website companies based outside of the UK don't have to bother complying with this law. I imagine that's the vast majority, and the few that are in the UK will quickly move shop.

*Sites will likely use IP geofencing to only ask UK visitors for verification. A VPN or proxy would get around this; I imagine many Britons already use VPNs to access Netflix USA, or the BBC viewer when on vacation.

*Overbroad 'verification' definition will lead to "click here if you're over 18" clickthroughs which are pointless (unless the pages capture visitors who don't have a cookie set, then they might catch accidental/blind link clicks).

*Attempting to DNS block sites that don't comply with the UK law is doomed to fail. Attempting to get Google et al, and Chillingeffects, to redact mention of these sites, is futile as they will miss other search engines.

*18 is the age of majority in the UK, but too high of a requirement. Why not set it to be the same as the age of consent (16 there)? Watching porn is more akin to having sex than signing a legal contract (insert witty retort here).

*How is compliance judged? The vague "would receive an R-18 classification if it were reviewed" allows the simple excuse: "PROVE that it would receive an R-18 classification" for an accused. One could simply say that in their opinion, it wouldn't have received such a classification, and assuming the material is unclassified, it would be difficult to prove it would unless the rules of classification are concrete and publicly-known (unlike the MPAA's classification rules).

*There is some evidence that access to porn reduces the incidence of rape. This really ought to be the end of the discussion, although it needs more research before it can be considered incontrovertible. I consider it compelling enough that I think govt. shouldn't restrict access to porn. Surely there are some teens under 18 who commit rape, and allowing them to see porn may prevent some of it.

*Theoretically, if porn is 'bad information about sex', then the proper solution in a democracy should be to solve it via the marketplace of ideas: to outshout it with 'good information about sex'. If the elite are too sex-negative to think of any compelling 'good information about sex' maybe they should let the people figure it out.
Ya know, Invisible Hand theory :)

If you are afraid...

[EzInKy]

...that your child will see something on the internet that you don't like, don't allow your child on the internet. It is not society's job to enforce your views, it is society's job to present alternative views.

Re:Priorities the Cameronian way

[Coisiche]

I did wonder why they were actually doing a consultation rather than just plunging headlong into introducing short-sighted, impractical and unworkable legislation like they usually do when trying to pander to their main support base.

Of course, if they don't like what the consultation suggests then it will probably be back to knee-jerk plan A.

A modest proposal

[Chrontius]

A bored, intoxicated biologist says:

Chemical castration has a distressing way of becoming permanent in a non-deterministic way. IE, sometimes you stop the pills/injections/implants/spice, and your endocrine system doesn't restart. Bodybuilders use a drug - nandralone? Fuck it's gone from late to early - to kick their system back into functioning after a while on the steroids, but it's not all that reliable, not all that legal, not all that available, and generally unpleasant. If you're going to castrate your kids, it's best to do it before puberty. That way, they don't suffer withdrawal effects, DNA methylation and acetylation patterns won't change to become dependent on sex hormones, and will tend to live 12 years longer than their un-neutered classmates.

Science, bitches! You'd be fucking amazed what it'll justify if misused, and I haven't even said anything that's technically incorrect.