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

[greenmax]

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

to access them from the UK.

One acronym for ya

 

 

VPN

[vorticalbox]

Quote

we expect those platforms to do a lot more to create a safer environment for children

I'm sorry when did children become the responsibility of a website and not the parents? 

 

Being a parent of 5 kids I don't expect any website to look after my children but it's my responsibility to teach my children the dangers of the Internet and protect them from it. 

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

I'm sorry when did children become the responsibility of a website and not the parents? 

 

Being a parent of 5 kids I don't expect any website to look after my children but it's my responsibility to teach my children the dangers of the Internet and protect them from it. 

Its the classic "won't somebody think of the children" argument and it works.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Its the classic "won't somebody think of the children" argument and it works.

It's actually society having to make rules because the lowest common denominator won't be responsible.   Car Child restraint laws are written for the 1% of parents who don't care enough about their kids to make them wear seat belts,     Laws enforcing dogs stay on leashes are their to help reduce the 1% of aggressive dog owners who refuse to control their dog in public.  This law was supposed to prevent the 1% of parents who don't control their kids access to the internet having minors see damaging content.

 

The problem with these discussions is that people just assume it is a controlling for the sake of controlling,   The government really doesn't care what porn an adult looks at, but they do care about future generations and protecting the vulnerable, Which in most cases are the minority or are vulnerable due to some other human being lazy or stupid or both.    The simple fact is these laws are written to protect minority groups (young children) who can't protect themselves.

 

It's fine to claim it's the parents job, but if people want to be genuine in the discussion they have to accept that a minority of parents won't do their job and any responsible society should be doing something about it. 

[imreloadin]

11 hours ago, vorticalbox said:

I'm sorry when did children become the responsibility of a website and not the parents? 

 

Being a parent of 5 kids I don't expect any website to look after my children but it's my responsibility to teach my children the dangers of the Internet and protect them from it. 

You're a responsible parent who actually...you know...parents their children.

That's a completely unreasonable request in the eyes of a lot of parents today.

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's actually society having to make rules because the lowest common denominator won't be responsible.   Car Child restraint laws are written for the 1% of parents who don't care enough about their kids to make them wear seat belts,     Laws enforcing dogs stay on leashes are their to help reduce the 1% of aggressive dog owners who refuse to control their dog in public.  This law was supposed to prevent the 1% of parents who don't control their kids access to the internet having minors see damaging content.

 

The problem with these discussions is that people just assume it is a controlling for the sake of controlling,   The government really doesn't care what porn an adult looks at, but they do care about future generations and protecting the vulnerable, Which in most cases are the minority or are vulnerable due to some other human being lazy or stupid or both.    The simple fact is these laws are written to protect minority groups (young children) who can't protect themselves.

 

It's fine to claim it's the parents job, but if people want to be genuine in the discussion they have to accept that a minority of parents won't do their job and any responsible society should be doing something about it. 

Then we move onto the encroachment of our civil liberties in the name of our protection which is a topic for another place entirely.

[ARikozuM]

7 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Then we move onto the encroachment of our civil liberties in the name of our protection which is a topic for another place entirely.

People buy into the "if you have nothing to fear" argument far too often. And then we don't ask how long is too long. 

[ARikozuM]

2 hours ago, imreloadin said:

You're a responsible parent who actually...you know...parents their children.

That's a completely unreasonable request in the eyes of a lot of parents today.

Parenting is a multi-faceted discussion and will never find consensus among "parents". For example, I would find overprotective behavior as demanding that I accompany my child everywhere. Another might say that this demand doesn't go far enough. 

 

It's easy for us to say that our kids shouldn't be on those sites, but we may not have a good general consensus for when. For example, why is it okay for a kid to smoke at 18, but not drink? reason vs etc, etc... 

 

Maybe the world should just start teaching sex ed around the age of puberty? Leaving everything to the parent leaves a lot to be desired as far from our goal of standardization.  

[Fnige]

This is nearly a 10 month post. This wasnt supposed to be revived

[ARikozuM]

Just now, SlimyPython said:

This is nearly a 10 month post. This wasnt supposed to be revived

It was updated to include the dismissal of the law. All of the news posts were due to that update. 

[Fnige]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

It was updated to include the dismissal of the law. All of the news posts were due to that update. 

oh ok, continue on

[Thaldor]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's actually society having to make rules because the lowest common denominator won't be responsible.   Car Child restraint laws are written for the 1% of parents who don't care enough about their kids to make them wear seat belts,     Laws enforcing dogs stay on leashes are their to help reduce the 1% of aggressive dog owners who refuse to control their dog in public.  This law was supposed to prevent the 1% of parents who don't control their kids access to the internet having minors see damaging content.

 

The problem with these discussions is that people just assume it is a controlling for the sake of controlling,   The government really doesn't care what porn an adult looks at, but they do care about future generations and protecting the vulnerable, Which in most cases are the minority or are vulnerable due to some other human being lazy or stupid or both.    The simple fact is these laws are written to protect minority groups (young children) who can't protect themselves.

 

It's fine to claim it's the parents job, but if people want to be genuine in the discussion they have to accept that a minority of parents won't do their job and any responsible society should be doing something about it. 

This would be the case if we were talking generally, but when we talk about UK which actually has a history of being interested about what porn adults watch and has gone quite a, let's say nicely, protestant levels of making sure they watch right porn (or more like no porn at all) things get a bit more colorful.

Taking account the western countries, UK is probably the most internet censoring country there is by having "voluntary" (for ISPs) ISP level blocking of quite excessive list of things by which a site can be blocked (dating, drugs and alcohol, file sharing, gambling, games, porn, nudity, social networking, suicide and self-harm, weapons and violence, obscenity, criminal skills, hate, media streaming, fashion and beauty, gore, cyberbullying and hacking and web-blocking circumvention tools; list by Wikipedia), it's opt-out for consumers but apparently consumers cannot completely opt-out of it because some monitoring reasons. UK has gone even that far to protect this that they were ready to use their veto in EU (thank god brexit happened, now their over-protection has zero chances to spread) to stop net neutrality guidelines from happening because there was a chance that they would make ISP "censoring" illegal in UK (they didn't use their veto because their "greatest fear didn't happen and ISP "censoring" is borderline legal in EU; there was some leaked memos about EU suggesting forcing ISP "censoring" to be opt-in to what UK pulled "but the children"-card and probably caused them to threaten with their veto).

 

All would be probably good if things went as in movies they go and no one made mistakes ever and everyone understood things as they were meant to be understood. But that's not how life on this planet works at all and things go from zero to anti-hero in less than second and so far the UK ISP censoring has had quite a good list of things that have been overcensored like: sex education, help with addictions, support services for rape and domestic victims, child protection services, suicide prevention and things with "funny" names (last one is my addition to a list found in Wikipedia because generally that is a thing that 100-proof, always, without exceptions happens with automated filters because we still haven't invented technology that understands contexts; like you can guess how many automatic filters will be screaming red when you write "I have a faggot of shittam branches from which I'm going to make a nosegay" ("I have a bundle of branches from certain American tree from which I'm going to make a bouquet") which even has context in it which makes every word fully acceptable). And generally those lists of websites to be censored by ISPs are extremely badly administered everywhere because that would be a lot of work and what governments generally hate is hard work (quite few years ago Finland had quite a bad case about this with out CP-censory list that one guy went through and found that most of the sites censored were either not in use anymore or included content that had nothing to do with CP and *hocus pocus* that guys webpage listing the sites that had nothing to do with CP found its way to that same censor list without including any CP; and that isn't the only case in the world).

 

Also that "because minority"-argument is kind of bad. Like "because girls have small boobs, we must ban women with small boobs from porn so certain people don't get wrong ideas" is really disturbing logic when making laws... Oh, Australia seems to have used that logic... Well, what can you expect from a country originally filled with prisoners from UK [HUMOR included, do not take seriously]. Yeah, there is a point, and a good one, but at the same time that is like burning the whole house down because venomous spiders. Like should we ban the use of sign language because some of its signs resemble hand signs used by gangs and white supremacists and/or these groups might in the future start using sign language signs?

With every "because minority"-law there is the lingering huge question: "Could we attain the same results with better informing, better education and other measures that aren't as radical as the action of the law?" and mainly because the fact is that even when there is the law there still is the minority who will break the law and probably with only the law that minority won't even get any smaller (just like "you need drivers license to drive a car", I have never driven a car with my drivers license and I think it would be really odd to see a car that you drove with your drivers license instead of using your hands and legs on the wheel and pedals). As in, putting in the porn license that will affect everyone, will censor sites that decide not to implement it, most likely will affect sites not intented and creates a ton of headaches, and it will be circumvented in matter of seconds and in days everyone knows how to circumvent it and all the headaches were for nothing. But if instead they were to put all that energy to educate parents (and soon-to-be) about IT, how to monitor their children's internet usage and how to talk to their children about porn children found from the internet and informing parents about the dangers of children watching porn, the effects could be much bigger because instead of doing things for people, they would teach people to do those things by themselves and handle the situations by themselves.

Just like the law about keeping dogs in the leashes, there is still a lot of dogs walking free and attacking other dogs and the law didn't do much, but if we were to make dog handling courses cheaper and more accessible with government funding and awarded people and their dogs for taking those courses, informed dog owners about the dangers of keeping their dogs free (dog getting hit by a car, dog getting lost and so on) and made minor adjustments to some laws (like hardened the sentences from your dog attacking other dogs and added more punishment if you hadn't completed handling courses with the dog) the effects could be much bigger (IMO "would be bigger" because there would be a ton of side-effects like dogs generally being more trained and better behaving and less ankle-bitting monsters in leashes without any kind of training; says a guy with actually trained dog and probably within next months a puppy to be trained as service dog).

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Then we move onto the encroachment of our civil liberties in the name of our protection which is a topic for another place entirely.

That is another argument for sure, however being able to move it to another debate doesn't detract from its relevance to this topic.   

 

6 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Snip

I really don't have time to read great walls of text,   It has always been illegal to supply porn to minor and this law does not prevent adults from accessing porn nor does it monitor who does.  All it does is enforce that existing law in the realm of the internet,  So I am not sure what there is to argue about.

 

[JoostinOnline]

I'm not very familiar with UK practices, but I wouldn't be surprised if activity across porn passes ends up being tracked.

[JoostinOnline]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I really don't have time to read great walls of text

Don't comment on stuff if you're too lazy to read it.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

Don't comment on stuff if you're too lazy to read it.

 

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I'm not very familiar with UK practices, but I wouldn't be surprised if activity across porn passes ends up being tracked.

Says the guy who obviously hasn't read the part about the porn pass being cancelled...

[JoostinOnline]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

 

Says the guy who obviously hasn't read the part about the porn pass being cancelled...

Is that in the original post? Because I read the whole thing (twice) and didn't see it.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Don't comment on stuff if you're too lazy to read it.

Don't tell me not to comment on conversations you aren't even a part off.  

 

 

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

In india all major ISP's have DNS blocked all porn sites becasue "indian values", it's not like the govt asked for our opinion, so when UK says we have porn passes, it feels like the most First Problem to me. just as Traffic rules are 95% of the time never about safety but for embezzling people of petty violation, i feel like this was mostly for monetization and less to do with protecting the children. maybe i'm just cynical. 

[Killing-time-itself]

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's actually society having to make rules because the lowest common denominator won't be responsible.   Car Child restraint laws are written for the 1% of parents who don't care enough about their kids to make them wear seat belts,     Laws enforcing dogs stay on leashes are their to help reduce the 1% of aggressive dog owners who refuse to control their dog in public.  This law was supposed to prevent the 1% of parents who don't control their kids access to the internet having minors see damaging content.

 

The problem with these discussions is that people just assume it is a controlling for the sake of controlling,   The government really doesn't care what porn an adult looks at, but they do care about future generations and protecting the vulnerable, Which in most cases are the minority or are vulnerable due to some other human being lazy or stupid or both.    The simple fact is these laws are written to protect minority groups (young children) who can't protect themselves.

 

It's fine to claim it's the parents job, but if people want to be genuine in the discussion they have to accept that a minority of parents won't do their job and any responsible society should be doing something about it. 

Shitty people make shitty parents and likewise shitty people shouldnt be parents. Not sure what the "for the kids" argument is for at that point if you're concerned just separate the parents from the kid.

[TechyBen]

On 2/6/2020 at 11:52 PM, mr moose said:

The law never required that, in fact the law didn't require linking an personal id to anything, not even government servers. 

Huh what now? AFAIK it required someone to walk in with their ID. It didn't like their ID to a regulatory database. But it did require people to provide their ID. What a store did with it, the recordings of you on CCTV, the other people in the que/store watching you etc is though a valid question.

 

I have no sidings here. But do question the facts in these posts.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/04/mindgeek_ageid_security_privacy_assessment/

There was little decision on the method at all it seems, but many did have plans on rolling out a method of some sorts. Including subsidiaries owned by such sites!

 

Also I do agree a lot of people seem confused as to what the laws are in the UK.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Killing-time-itself said:

Shitty people make shitty parents and likewise shitty people shouldnt be parents. Not sure what the "for the kids" argument is for at that point if you're concerned just separate the parents from the kid.

 

Good luck doing that.    Having spent the last 15 years working in and around social services (students and family violence, neglect, abuse, etc) I can assure you the systems all countries introduce to deal with parents who can't parent don't stop the problems.   It's a shit uphill battle that you can;t stop fighting even though everyday feels like a loss.

 

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Huh what now? AFAIK it required someone to walk in with their ID. It didn't like their ID to a regulatory database. But it did require people to provide their ID. What a store did with it, the recordings of you on CCTV, the other people in the que/store watching you etc is though a valid question.

 

You already have to do that with alcohol, cigarettes and sex shop items.   All this law set out to do is force the internet to submit to existing laws.

 

5 hours ago, TechyBen said:

I have no sidings here. But do question the facts in these posts.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/04/mindgeek_ageid_security_privacy_assessment/

There was little decision on the method at all it seems, but many did have plans on rolling out a method of some sorts. Including subsidiaries owned by such sites!

 

Also I do agree a lot of people seem confused as to what the laws are in the UK.

 

The biggest issue is people are being absolutest in their approach, the general argument I hear most often is "you can't prove the problem happens every time all the time then it isn't a problem" And "the solution is by-passable therefore pointless".   Porn doesn't have to hurt every child in an epidemic before laws to protect them are justified and just because some people can bypass the need for a porn pass doesn't mean it is futile or non effective. . 

[Thaldor]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I really don't have time to read great walls of text,   It has always been illegal to supply porn to minor and this law does not prevent adults from accessing porn nor does it monitor who does.  All it does is enforce that existing law in the realm of the internet,  So I am not sure what there is to argue about.

TL;DR: The whole internet filtering everywhere (except probably China's great firewall) is mostly a bad joke because way too easy to circumvent and as effective as swiping dust under a rug.

 

Minority argument is just as good as slippery slope argument; For example the dog leashes law is mostly pointless because people will break the law when they don't understand it and far better results would be gained through putting all that energy and funds it took to make the law and enforce it into education and information because all the law did was put ankle-bitting monsters into leashes and people are still as stupid with their untrained dogs as they were before, while making handling courses more affordable and spreading information about them and maybe even rewarding new dog owners for taking them would have had far better results (ie. people being more educated about handling dogs while dogs would be generally more trained).

Same thing here, making something like a porn pass will create a tons of headaches and tons of problems especially in UK (which doesn't only upkeep filtering list for things ISPs are supposed to block from customers on default, but also a whitelist because their filtering list is so broad and general that ISPs are mandated also block sites like sex education, suicide prevention and addiction helping), while offering government funded or -aided courses on IT skills that new parents most likely will need would not only lessen the amount of headaches but also educates the population so that they might also learn other useful skills and probably also how to communicate with their kids generally better.

 

Tackling minority problems with measures that will concern not only everyone in the population but also parts of the whole world is same as burning down your house because you spotted venomous spider. [partly joke] But maybe that is Australian way to tackle problems since apparently when rating porn, extra caution must be used when the woman doesn't have double-D ta-tas so that the porn doesn't excite wrong people. [/partly joke]

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Thaldor said:

TL;DR: The whole internet filtering everywhere (except probably China's great firewall) is mostly a bad joke because way too easy to circumvent and as effective as swiping dust under a rug.

 

And that is the absolutist argument I mentioned earlier.  Just because something can be bypassed doesn't mean it wont be effective.  By the time many kids are old enough to work out how to bypass this they will bee bordering on old enough for porn not to be a problem.

 

5 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Minority argument is just as good as slippery slope argument; For example the dog leashes law is mostly pointless because people will break the law when they don't understand it and far better results would be gained through putting all that energy and funds it took to make the law and enforce it into education and information because all the law did was put ankle-bitting monsters into leashes and people are still as stupid with their untrained dogs as they were before, while making handling courses more affordable and spreading information about them and maybe even rewarding new dog owners for taking them would have had far better results (ie. people being more educated about handling dogs while dogs would be generally more trained).

It's not actually slippery slope argument at all.  People seen without leashes get fined, some people know it's illegal so go to the effort to leash up when they otherwise wouldn't have.   

5 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Same thing here, making something like a porn pass will create a tons of headaches and tons of problems especially in UK (which doesn't only upkeep filtering list for things ISPs are supposed to block from customers on default, but also a whitelist because their filtering list is so broad and general that ISPs are mandated also block sites like sex education, suicide prevention and addiction helping), while offering government funded or -aided courses on IT skills that new parents most likely will need would not only lessen the amount of headaches but also educates the population so that they might also learn other useful skills and probably also how to communicate with their kids generally better.

I think I am going to have to simply accept that as your opinion.   In this day and age with security and privacy being such big issues may online companies (banks, government departments, steam and paypal have to go to extreme lengths all day everyday.

 

5 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Tackling minority problems with measures that will concern not only everyone in the population but also parts of the whole world is same as burning down your house because you spotted venomous spider. [partly joke] But maybe that is Australian way to tackle problems since apparently when rating porn, extra caution must be used when the woman doesn't have double-D ta-tas so that the porn doesn't excite wrong people. [/partly joke]

All laws do this exact thing, they make honest business and sports clubs jump through bureaucratic hoops in order to have a paypass/CC machine.  all because money launders legitimized their drug money through small business this way.   Every tried to get a bank account recently, you just about have to not only prove you are who you are but you have to also disprove you aren't everyone else.  Again that's the minority spoiling it for the majority.   Most laws have an effect on innocent people simply to protect minority groups.  Minority groups are just as important as everyone else. 

[TechyBen]

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Good luck doing that.    Having spent the last 15 years working in and around social services (students and family violence, neglect, abuse, etc) I can assure you the systems all countries introduce to deal with parents who can't parent don't stop the problems.   It's a shit uphill battle that you can;t stop fighting even though everyday feels like a loss.

 

 

You already have to do that with alcohol, cigarettes and sex shop items.   All this law set out to do is force the internet to submit to existing laws.

 

 

The biggest issue is people are being absolutest in their approach, the general argument I hear most often is "you can't prove the problem happens every time all the time then it isn't a problem" And "the solution is by-passable therefore pointless".   Porn doesn't have to hurt every child in an epidemic before laws to protect them are justified and just because some people can bypass the need for a porn pass doesn't mean it is futile or non effective. . 

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)