UKs Porn Pass law has just passed, will go into affect in July

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Actually no you don't. Only if you look under 25. (AFIK it's not a "law" to ask for id, just to sell to someone under an age, so it might be a recommendation in a store to sometimes ask for id. As with most of these threads, UK is not USA is no AUS)

 

That's great, so you can see all they have done is effectively make getting porn on the interne as difficult as getting alcohol or sex toys.  Always has been avoidable but it still has an effect and that is the point.

 

[TechyBen]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

That's great, so you can see all they have done is effectively make getting porn on the interne as difficult as getting alcohol or sex toys.  Always has been avoidable but it still has an effect and that is the point.

 

("All they have done", they did nothing, nothing passed, but besides...) I don't think it's that point of the argument I was commenting on. I mentioned current UK law, not what the other posters were on about.

 

I was thinking about why I actually felt I needed to reply (as said, it don't affect me, and I don't care about it, but do about people getting confused on the details/facts about what it's like living here in the UK).

 

I realised, no one gives you a "ticket" to buy those other things. So I cannot (for example) sneak a ticket to buy alcohol to an underage person. Or a coupon to allow them to get cigarettes from a machine (though machines are now illegal anyhow).

 

I think the problem was people were against the propose *type* of solution, not the requirement for the id/age/restrictions. They were not against it in principle, but against there being no regulation on the regulators, or wished for better security/implementation of the checks.

 

So it's unfair, and a bit disingenuous to think everyone is against the original proposal and solution as it was presented. I've no problem with ID for alcohol, and have never bought cigarettes. But if a law was going to be passed requiring fingerprinting to buy cigs, I might be concerned about security in store (of things like accidentally smudging an old print, like that Samsung bug there was ) if things are not robust or thought out. Even if it would never affect me, I understand the risk to others (even though I would think smoking itself would be even worse than the security risk).

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

("All they have done", they did nothing, nothing passed, but besides...) I don't think it's that point of the argument I was commenting on. I mentioned current UK law, not what the other posters were on about.

 

O.K, all they intended to do and all the laws so far set out to achieve was...

 

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I was thinking about why I actually felt I needed to reply (as said, it don't affect me, and I don't care about it, but do about people getting confused on the details/facts about what it's like living here in the UK).

 

I realised, no one gives you a "ticket" to buy those other things. So I cannot (for example) sneak a ticket to buy alcohol to an underage person. Or a coupon to allow them to get cigarettes from a machine (though machines are now illegal anyhow).

 

I think the problem was people were against the propose *type* of solution, not the requirement for the id/age/restrictions. They were not against it in principle, but against there being no regulation on the regulators, or wished for better security/implementation of the checks.

I think the issue here is that the internet and digital content is a different product than all the others.  You can't download or stream a bottle of wine, you can't gamble without a bank account or paypal account.  All other age limited products have existing ways to age verify.  Porn does not.  Try and think of another way to prevent underage people viewing porn om the internet.

 

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

So it's unfair, and a bit disingenuous to think everyone is against the original proposal and solution as it was presented. I've no problem with ID for alcohol, and have never bought cigarettes. But if a law was going to be passed requiring fingerprinting to buy cigs, I might be concerned about security in store (of things like accidentally smudging an old print, like that Samsung bug there was ) if things are not robust or thought out. Even if it would never affect me, I understand the risk to others (even though I would think smoking itself would be even worse than the security risk).

Well,  I was responding the people who keep saying it's the parents job and it's a stupid law because *insert logical fallacy here*. 

 

 

 

 

[TechyBen]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

O.K, all they intended to do and all the laws so far set out to achieve was...

 

I think the issue here is that the internet and digital content is a different product than all the others.  You can't download or stream a bottle of wine, you can't gamble without a bank account or paypal account.  All other age limited products have existing ways to age verify.  Porn does not.  Try and think of another way to prevent underage people viewing porn om the internet.

 

Well,  I was responding the people who keep saying it's the parents job and it's a stupid law because *insert logical fallacy here*. 

 

 

 

 

You do need your ID for gambling. But it's not anonymous.

Again, factually, these things are not the same. That's not me being argumentative. We can do the same with some things. I can eat both apples and oranges, even though they are different. I cannot though eat Mount Everest.

 

Likewise, anonymity and ID/security/protecting children kinda don't go hand in hand, and that is the error in the law/problem that needs solving. I don't have much "Schadenfreude" (I'm not happy to see bad happen to others) even if I think they are asking for it. I'd prefer to see them avoid it. So I don't know which is better, or how to protect everyone. But I do worry that companies would lose data, extort people (staff could, though the company may not) or even just misunderstand the law (so I prefer to see if I can find facts on it and help them learn).

 

So we kinda either have to make the system extremely robust (correct method plus checking the regulators/companies) or just accept the risks. This was contested.

Or we have to find a different solution. I'm not sure if there is though, so perhaps correcting/improving the proposed one will go forwards?

 

Quote

All other age limited products have existing ways to age verify.

All the other ways are high and difficult buy in for youngsters to get hold of (gambling with just friends, growing your own tobacco lol, or making beer). Possible, but totally impractical. Irregardless of "ID", the society can agree in general not to show it or give it to children (in public, at home/family is a different problem, one I'm glad you understand thankful you were on the right side of it ). 

 

The modern digital world does the opposite and makes it practically impossible not to get the data/connections you wish for.

 

Also, in the UK... we already do have age verification. You cannot connect to the internet at 12 legally without that net also having an ISP filter on it (AFAIK). Any new connection is sold with it turned on (mobiles + landlines) and also you need to phone/prove you are the account holder (who needs to be 18 when setting up) to be able to remove it.

 

As you said, those who can get past the DNS/use a VP to get through it, are always going to exist, and the law was not about that, but a general protection. We already have an ID requiring general protection. We already know it's easy to circumvent.

 

So I'm not saying you're wrong. Just laying down some info on the current status quo in the UK. This new law would be a small improvement for children, with a large improvement as a societarital decision to not *serve* the websites to children. Currently, the websites pass the buck onto the ISP/parents/school/etc to filter. I think it is a better thing to show that the websites themselves are responsible for their own actions, and if needed, should just drop off existing all together if it's more beneficial for us (sources of/places that benefit from revenge porn etc)!

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You do need your ID for gambling. But it's not anonymous.

Again, factually, these things are not the same. That's not me being argumentative. We can do the same with some things. I can eat both apples and oranges, even though they are different. I cannot though eat Mount Everest.

 

Likewise, anonymity and ID/security/protecting children kinda don't go hand in hand, and that is the error in the law/problem that needs solving. I don't have much "Schadenfreude" (I'm not happy to see bad happen to others) even if I think they are asking for it. I'd prefer to see them avoid it. So I don't know which is better, or how to protect everyone. But I do worry that companies would lose data, extort people (staff could, though the company may not) or even just misunderstand the law (so I prefer to see if I can find facts on it and help them learn).

I think you might have missed the a big part of this,  there is no need for personal data to be any where on the system.  You can maintain your anonymity with the proposed system.

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

So we kinda either have to make the system extremely robust (correct method plus checking the regulators/companies) or just accept the risks. This was contested.

Or we have to find a different solution. I'm not sure if there is though, so perhaps correcting/improving the proposed one will go forwards?

 

All the other ways are high and difficult buy in for youngsters to get hold of (gambling with just friends, growing your own tobacco lol, or making beer). Possible, but totally impractical. Irregardless of "ID", the society can agree in general not to show it or give it to children (in public, at home/family is a different problem, one I'm glad you understand thankful you were on the right side of it ). 

 

The modern digital world does the opposite and makes it practically impossible not to get the data/connections you wish for.

This is exactly the problem and what they wish to prevent.

 

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Also, in the UK... we already do have age verification. You cannot connect to the internet at 12 legally without that net also having an ISP filter on it (AFAIK). Any new connection is sold with it turned on (mobiles + landlines) and also you need to phone/prove you are the account holder (who needs to be 18 when setting up) to be able to remove it.

But families have on internet connection that everyone shares. And porn is illegal for under 18 (arguments about the psychology aside for the moment).

 

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

As you said, those who can get past the DNS/use a VP to get through it, are always going to exist, and the law was not about that, but a general protection. We already have an ID requiring general protection. We already know it's easy to circumvent.

Which doesn't work because the people you need to protect the most don;t have suitable supervision already.

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

So I'm not saying you're wrong. Just laying down some info on the current status quo in the UK. This new law would be a small improvement for children, with a large improvement as a societarital decision to not *serve* the websites to children. Currently, the websites pass the buck onto the ISP/parents/school/etc to filter. I think it is a better thing to show that the websites themselves are responsible for their own actions, and if needed, should just drop off existing all together if it's more beneficial for us (sources of/places that benefit from revenge porn etc)!

I do agree with this, I think it should be applied to all websites, I.E when facebook allow their site to be used to abuse people and violate basic human decencies/rights they should be held accountable for their part.  

[TechyBen]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you might have missed the a big part of this,  there is no need for personal data to be any where on the system.  You can maintain your anonymity with the proposed system.

Yes. Still offers a code/ticket. The current systems (cigs, alcahol, gambling) do not. They either offer point of contact with no anonymity (gambling) or ID at sale (alcohol/cigs). Offering a token/ticket seems to defeat to point of "protecting the children" as they can get hold of the ticket. It seems less robust than current solutions (note that gambling online does not allow for anonymity, so why are we asking for it here?).

 

Quote

This is exactly the problem and what they wish to prevent.

And the worry was that there was no regulation/requirement for the ID/ticket/token providers to have security or robust systems.

 

Quote

But families have on internet connection that everyone shares. And porn is illegal for under 18 (arguments about the psychology aside for the moment).

But alcohol and cigarettes also have the same problem. Hence people questioning the preventive measures as "too far" (not my argument, I just understand why they are questioning it). We have ID for all of these right now (including porn). We have a risk of families allowing children to access them. If we had infinite funds, time and good will, we could trial this idea, and if it fails, (if we also had perfect ability to accept data and results without bias  ) we could try something else instead. But I think most were afraid it was the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

 

Take for example contraception (and similar) provisions for young people. I see that society wishes to provide anonymity to prevent stigma from stopping them from getting help, but also wishes to know who is affected so they can stop abuse of youngsters. Which means it's a really really difficult tightrope to walk.

 

For an actual protecting of others, I'm happy to give up liberties or provide costs/expenses. But not everyone is, and sometimes even if we are happy to, others abuse the system. So I guess we really need to be careful at times. Is this one of them, where we need to concentrate of a slightly better solution?

 

Quote

Which doesn't work because the people you need to protect the most don;t have suitable supervision already.

And this seems like the same solution, with the same problems, just by a different name.  Thus at risk of the same errors, but a bit more cost to individuals and society. 

 

Quote

I do agree with this, I think it should be applied to all websites, I.E when facebook allow their site to be used to abuse people and violate basic human decencies/rights they should be held accountable for their part.  

Yeah, we have a really really strange juxtaposition with the internet. We give the mail/post a right to be "free from interception" because we see privacy as a right, not because it's *difficult* to read everyone's mail (some countries/empires tried it). But the similar ISPs "packets" being delivered? We charge them with the cost/requirement to police it and expect privacy to be removed. Then we see the websites (facebook/Youtube) try to argue they are "common carriers/service providers" and while they advertise on, support and curate their content they also step back from responsibility...

 

So I find it a sign of dishonesty that a rose by another name we treat differently just because "digitual" and fail to see it only changes the speed, scope and availability, not the mechanics or end result.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Yes. Still offers a code/ticket. The current systems (cigs, alcahol, gambling) do not. They either offer point of contact with no anonymity (gambling) or ID at sale (alcohol/cigs). Offering a token/ticket seems to defeat to point of "protecting the children" as they can get hold of the ticket. It seems less robust than current solutions (note that gambling online does not allow for anonymity, so why are we asking for it here?).

I was referring to online gambling only in that it is a measure in which age can already be verified without adding heavily to the operations of online operators (as someone earlier said it would create untold problems for business).   Even though it isn't absolute it still has an impact, because the only people who are going to buy a pass for preteens are the ones who are essentially abusing them and would let them see it anyway.  These issues are for the human services. This is to stop pre teens secreting of with the ipad to watch porn when their parents don't know it is happening.

 

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

And the worry was that there was no regulation/requirement for the ID/ticket/token providers to have security or robust systems.

 

I think it's good they don't,  it means that no one was going to keep tabs on who buys passes.  It may not be fool proof, but it only has to reduce the number of preteens accessing porn. 

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

But alcohol and cigarettes also have the same problem. Hence people questioning the preventive measures as "too far" (not my argument, I just understand why they are questioning it). We have ID for all of these right now (including porn). We have a risk of families allowing children to access them. If we had infinite funds, time and good will, we could trial this idea, and if it fails, (if we also had perfect ability to accept data and results without bias  ) we could try something else instead. But I think most were afraid it was the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

 

People even made those arguments when they change the law allowing woman to vote and stand for parliament.  They too said it was going too far.  This is why I try to concentrate on the law itself and the effect it will have and not the (pardon for the insulting tones) not the idealistic edgy fear induced assumptions.

 

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Take for example contraception (and similar) provisions for young people. I see that society wishes to provide anonymity to prevent stigma from stopping them from getting help, but also wishes to know who is affected so they can stop abuse of youngsters. Which means it's a really really difficult tightrope to walk.

They did that through doctor anonymity and minimum age without parental consent.  If parents ask for their kids to get the pill without a medical reason the doctor can refuse, In Australia they also have to report it.

 

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

For an actual protecting of others, I'm happy to give up liberties or provide costs/expenses. But not everyone is, and sometimes even if we are happy to, others abuse the system. So I guess we really need to be careful at times. Is this one of them, where we need to concentrate of a slightly better solution?

I guess I really see the world through a different lens,  I am happy to pay $10 for pass if it means one child somewhere in Australia is not going to have their sexuality messed up because they saw some of the rubbish the internet has to offer.  Hell I've already had to counsel early  teens who saw the Taliban beheading, that was a mess. people just don't realize how damaging some of this stuff is.  ( I know violence and porn aren't the same, but the mechanism by which they could see it is the same and much of the porn on line contains stuff you really need to be older than 14-15 before it affects your development).

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

And this seems like the same solution, with the same problems, just by a different name.  Thus at risk of the same errors, but a bit more cost to individuals and society. 

Of course,  but imagine if the that process/solution was removed from the other problems. 

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Yeah, we have a really really strange juxtaposition with the internet. We give the mail/post a right to be "free from interception" because we see privacy as a right, not because it's *difficult* to read everyone's mail (some countries/empires tried it). But the similar ISPs "packets" being delivered? We charge them with the cost/requirement to police it and expect privacy to be removed. Then we see the websites (facebook/Youtube) try to argue they are "common carriers/service providers" and while they advertise on, support and curate their content they also step back from responsibility...

 

This is a problem I don't see us overcoming.

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

So I find it a sign of dishonesty that a rose by another name we treat differently just because "digitual" and fail to see it only changes the speed, scope and availability, not the mechanics or end result.

 

But it is different, availability is the problem, before the internet most children didn't witness porn until they were old enough to discover the old mans stash. Now they can witness it when they are old enough to google the word sex. We are talking access from anytime after 7 now versus 12+ before the internet.  This is stuff that I have actually learnt as part of my early childhood education career.  Identifying abuse and the children who have been exposed to things at home they shouldn't be (I.E alcohol, porn, violent movies, abuse).

 

One of the scariest things I heard an 8 year old saying during imaginative play is "my husband has been spying on us",  where do you think that thought came from?

 

 

[TechyBen]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I was referring to online gambling only in that it is a measure in which age can already be verified without adding heavily to the operations of online operators (as someone earlier said it would create untold problems for business). 

AFAIK no one was arguing over that. Not even the companies. Most were happy as it's more costs/services they can charge for and make a profit on. Not even the consumers.

Quote

Even though it isn't absolute it still has an impact, because the only people who are going to buy a pass for preteens are the ones who are essentially abusing them and would let them see it anyway.  These issues are for the human services. This is to stop pre teens secreting of with the ipad to watch porn when their parents don't know it is happening.

Yeah, I said I see no problem with the requirements in principle. But I see a lot of people (and rightfully so at times) pointing out the faults in the application of the method.

Quote

I think it's good they don't,  it means that no one was going to keep tabs on who buys passes.  It may not be fool proof, but it only has to reduce the number of preteens accessing porn. 

No. There were *no* regulations on the companies making proposed mechanical/electronic solutions. They could keep tabs if they wished. Because the law would only state "you need an anonymous ticket to get access" (AFAIK, to paraphrase). It anonymity was not a requirement of the law proposed, then theoretically all sites could provide access direct with credit card/ID applications etc. But people want both, protection and anonymity, nad I (personally) don't think that is possible currently in our system/society.

Quote

They did that through doctor anonymity and minimum age without parental consent.  If parents ask for their kids to get the pill without a medical reason the doctor can refuse, In Australia they also have to report it.

Not sure about Australia, again, as I've repeatedly stated, things are different (legally/mechanical application of systems) in the UK:

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/sexual-health/confidentiality-at-sexual-health-services/ and https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/sexual-health/getting-contraception/

I don't remember the finer details of the over the counter purchases, if they are similar, or names/ages have to be given.

Some people in the UK see anonymity (or confidentiality) as a right. Thus the problems with the proposed law. It risks, encroaches or confuses those aspects.

 

Availability was there. The hurdles were higher. The walls have been lowered now. At least, as everyone has stated, the public ones. The parental walls are still there. That's the real problem. You say you don't expect Google or Facebook or the internet to have a solution? Then why think this was one? (Though I agree, it's something that will be done, hopefully having some effect, but also hopefully too faults, like Equifax hacks or Store credit card breaches ) Everything else is like trying to put a bandaid on a leaky dam. It might "help", but it's not holding the waters back.

 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

AFAIK no one was arguing over that. Not even the companies. Most were happy as it's more costs/services they can charge for and make a profit on. Not even the consumers.

They were on this forum.

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Yeah, I said I see no problem with the requirements in principle. But I see a lot of people (and rightfully so at times) pointing out the faults in the application of the method.

I think that just comes back tot he whole community problems. I think the expression you can;t have your cake and eat it too comes from the principal that if you are greedy in wanting everything your way, you undermine the society that makes all things you want possible.

 

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

No. There were *no* regulations on the companies making proposed mechanical/electronic solutions. They could keep tabs if they wished. Because the law would only state "you need an anonymous ticket to get access" (AFAIK, to paraphrase). It anonymity was not a requirement of the law proposed, then theoretically all sites could provide access direct with credit card/ID applications etc. But people want both, protection and anonymity, nad I (personally) don't think that is possible currently in our system/society.

If I read the proposal right the passes would be sold over the counter, the teller just has to site ID like they would if you were buying smokes or alcohol.  You can pay cash and they don;t take a copy of your id so there is no way to link anyone to any pass. 

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Not sure about Australia, again, as I've repeatedly stated, things are different (legally/mechanical application of systems) in the UK:

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/sexual-health/confidentiality-at-sexual-health-services/ and https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/sexual-health/getting-contraception/

I don't remember the finer details of the over the counter purchases, if they are similar, or names/ages have to be given.

Some people in the UK see anonymity (or confidentiality) as a right. Thus the problems with the proposed law. It risks, encroaches or confuses those aspects.

So the doc can tell your parents if you are under 16, but aren't obliged to.   Interesting.

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Availability was there. The hurdles were higher. The walls have been lowered now. At least, as everyone has stated, the public ones. The parental walls are still there. That's the real problem. You say you don't expect Google or Facebook or the internet to have a solution? Then why think this was one? (Though I agree, it's something that will be done, hopefully having some effect, but also hopefully too faults, like Equifax hacks or Store credit card breaches ) Everything else is like trying to put a bandaid on a leaky dam. It might "help", but it's not holding the waters back.

 

 

The internet removed all barriers and parenting hasn't changed.    Its a way to deal with a new problem.  Which is better than throwing our hands in the air and letting all the new problems the internet has bought us go unhindered. 

[TechyBen]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

They were on this forum.

I think that just comes back tot he whole community problems. I think the expression you can;t have your cake and eat it too comes from the principal that if you are greedy in wanting everything your way, you undermine the society that makes all things you want possible.

 

If I read the proposal right the passes would be sold over the counter, the teller just has to site ID like they would if you were buying smokes or alcohol.  You can pay cash and they don;t take a copy of your id so there is no way to link anyone to any pass. 

So the doc can tell your parents if you are under 16, but aren't obliged to.   Interesting.

 

The internet removed all barriers and parenting hasn't changed.    Its a way to deal with a new problem.  Which is better than throwing our hands in the air and letting all the new problems the internet has bought us go unhindered. 

Just as a side note too, and one of the annoyances with such proposals (though probably not in THIS case), if it's a blanket "whitelist" instead of a blacklist, you end up asking for "access to the open net" because Wikipedia or something is blocked and everyone looks at you like "pornos!!!".

One of the reasons I generally only use OpenDNS or self configurable blocks, not automatic and over zealous ones.

 

I understand what you are saying about the over the counter stuff. But that's still not "anonymous" as the counter staff can know who you are (especially in small towns) and what you are doing. While no worry for me, I won't be involved, is a worry for those who get to decide/vote on this law. Hence the backlash!

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, TechyBen said:

 

I understand what you are saying about the over the counter stuff. But that's still not "anonymous" as the counter staff can know who you are (especially in small towns) and what you are doing. While no worry for me, I won't be involved, is a worry for those who get to decide/vote on this law. Hence the backlash!

That was never a problem before the internet, when not only did the person behind the counter know you buying porn but he knew which porn you buying too.   Prior to the internet and all this privacy stuff/political correctness stuff, men used to talk about porn and which mags/movies they bought recently, Adults knew that was normal and didn't think twice about it.  It might interest some people to know that pornographic content was often hung n walls in male oriented workplaces,  heaven forbid that should happen now before someone takes issue.

 

 

[TechyBen]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

That was never a problem before the internet, when not only did the person behind the counter know you buying porn but he knew which porn you buying too.   Prior to the internet and all this privacy stuff/political correctness stuff, men used to talk about porn and which mags/movies they bought recently, Adults knew that was normal and didn't think twice about it.  It might interest some people to know that pornographic content was often hung n walls in male oriented workplaces,  heaven forbid that should happen now before someone takes issue.

 

 

Horse, stable door and all that. I'm still trying to convince people washing machines are a new invention, and shock and horror, people survived without them in the past.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Horse, stable door and all that. I'm still trying to convince people washing machines are a new invention, and shock and horror, people survived without them in the past.

What do you mean?  Laws and social ramifications of new technology always lag immensely.  No one jumps on a new technology and creates laws to prevent a problem that hasn't become a problem yet.

[TechyBen]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

What do you mean?  Laws and social ramifications of new technology always lag immensely.  No one jumps on a new technology and creates laws to prevent a problem that hasn't become a problem yet.

And that is a problem. When building a bridge, people who want it to be safe, make checks *before* building it. Technology is not magic. We just decide to put safety and people last after profit and speed.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, TechyBen said:

And that is a problem. When building a bridge, people who want it to be safe, make checks *before* building it. Technology is not magic. We just decide to put safety and people last after profit and speed.

But the bridge is not the problem, it's the unpredictable nature of traffic crossing the bridge that is the problem. If the internet is a bridge, then the issue is it can be used by anyone for anything unchecked and that is what leads to issues unforeseen.

 

 

[greenmax]

On 4/17/2019 at 9:31 AM, Master Disaster said:

will be legally obligated to verify the age of anybody trying to access them from the UK.

Use a VPN

[TechyBen]

16 hours ago, greenmax said:

Use a VPN

Define the legality of that?