Porn Pass (age verification in the UK)

[Sniperfox47]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Because the article claims the idea is you show the man at the counter your id and he gives yoou a card that has a verification number on it.  Unless that man has a photographic memory and can remember to write down your drivers license and the serial number of the card he sold you ther is no way to link a verification code used online to anyone.   Maybe if there is an automated system it can be programed to do that, but now we are talking about fraud and privacy laws which can be abused by any automated system.

 

EDIT: also keep in mind that the verification process is being run by each website at the other end and not the government so technically if the government was spying some how the website owners would know nad secondly I'm not actually happy about the charging bit.  I think it should be free or so small of a fee (to cover the cost of the card)  that it may as well be free.

Showing ID is far from the only way to identify you... as you said it has a cost, and as such you have to pay.

 

Pay with Debit or Credit? That card is linked to you and is identifying. Your bank, the government, and the place of purchase all now know that *you specifically* purchased that item.

 

Pay with cash? Okay not it's a *little* harder, but as mentioned linking local CCTV footage to a transaction to identify a user is really not that hard.

 

Deanonymizing transaction records is *really* not that hard.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Showing ID is far from the only way to identify you... as you said it has a cost, and as such you have to pay.

 

Pay with Debit or Credit? That card is linked to you and is identifying. Your bank, the government, and the place of purchase all now know that *you specifically* purchased that item.

 

Pay with cash? Okay not it's a *little* harder, but as mentioned linking local CCTV footage to a transaction to identify a user is really not that hard.

 

Deanonymizing transaction records is *really* not that hard.

CCTV monitoring? linking purchases to payment methods?

I am happy too discuss the merits of the system ( or lack thereof if that's how it pans out) but I am not going to entertain conspiracies.

[DeLorian]

Oh lol, what are they trying to achieve? Don't they know, that something like NordVPN or Surfshark VPN or any others exist? Let's fight a battle that we cannot win in any way, shape or form. But I mean, it is the UK government soo...

[Bananasplit_00]

Hey if I get porn hub premium or whatever included then sure I guess, far from the worst idea I have seen

[ScratchCat]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

CCTV monitoring? linking purchases to payment methods?

I am happy too discuss the merits of the system ( or lack thereof if that's how it pans out) but I am not going to entertain conspiracies.

They have shown proof of concepts linking your unique phone WiFi MAC address to your credit card. Simply place a number of hotspots near shops, record which MAC addresses are searching for connections when certain payments go through and over time you can develop a vast dataset.

[Sauron]

12 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. If I had a dad that knew how to do all that I wouldn't be looking up porn on the home computer, but you're not the typical dad now are you? Most parents won't know a thing as long as you don't leave it in the internet history.

2. correct, the website would have to be in compliance or not, but as with many things how does enforcement go? Either the government actively targets porn websites and takes them to court if they don't use the software, which brings back to my point of who is targeted and the gov forgetting about smaller sites full of porn, also facebook and tumble and twitter and all the major social medias would have to include it too.

Or the government handles enforcement loosely and makes the software available and puts the law into effect and most websites never even notice it happen and nothing will change at all. 

3. I didn't say it would be done correctly, I said that would be the only option that would even come close to a non identifiable solution, but as you pointed out, that has flaws too

1. Of course, but then again most kids wouldn't know all the tactics - if this pushes kids to educate themselves about hiding their tracks online and basic networking it may still be worth it. Besides, I think this is more relevant when it comes to preventing young children from accidentally finding porn or other potentially harmful content (I don't think anyone mentioned this, but online gambling may also be affected); most adolescents don't really need this sort of protection in my opinion.

2. Enforcement would be pretty simple, one report and the website gets a cease and desist letter, followed by an ISP level ban. I don't really see why websites wouldn't want to comply anyway, the effort required and the potential traffic loss would be minimal compared to the risk of a nation wide ban.

3. The proposed solution is pretty close to being completely unidentifiable - the clerk doesn't know you (hopefully) and no registers need to be kept, you just walk in, show a document and get a code. It's just a little embarassing to show up at the post office and request what is essentially a porn pass... although I'm sure there will be young adults selling codes to kids from day one.

[Brooksie359]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

Slippery slope arguments arren't a substitute for actual arguments.  Not meant in a mean in a mean way, I just see these arguments all the time.

The law itself is kinda rediculus already. They are already overstepping their bounds in my mind so them doing it again wouldn't be so weird. The slippery slope fallacy implies that a minor incident will lead to a much more extreme version of that which is why it's a fallacy. An extreme version would be the joke posted in this thread talking about all the license you need some of which are ridiculous. Now being worries that the UK is trying to regulate the internet and this law would be a step a huge step in setting a precedent for such laws is 100% justified. They have been trying to pass laws to regulate the internet for awhile now and allowing something like this to pass wouldn't be a good thing. Slippery slope may be a fallacy but there are also legal  precedent that have had implications that are more profound than people realize. Anyways my point being that saying that the government being involved in regulating the internet is a bad thing and that although it might porn now it could be something else the government find unsavory.

[Brooksie359]

26 minutes ago, Sauron said:

1. Of course, but then again most kids wouldn't know all the tactics - if this pushes kids to educate themselves about hiding their tracks online and basic networking it may still be worth it. Besides, I think this is more relevant when it comes to preventing young children from accidentally finding porn or other potentially harmful content (I don't think anyone mentioned this, but online gambling may also be affected); most adolescents don't really need this sort of protection in my opinion.

2. Enforcement would be pretty simple, one report and the website gets a cease and desist letter, followed by an ISP level ban. I don't really see why websites wouldn't want to comply anyway, the effort required and the potential traffic loss would be minimal compared to the risk of a nation wide ban.

3. The proposed solution is pretty close to being completely unidentifiable - the clerk doesn't know you (hopefully) and no registers need to be kept, you just walk in, show a document and get a code. It's just a little embarassing to show up at the post office and request what is essentially a porn pass... although I'm sure there will be young adults selling codes to kids from day one.

It's one country out of the many in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of the websites simply don't bother especially the smaller ones. The big ones likely will comply but smaller ones likely won't. 

[Sauron]

34 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

It's one country out of the many in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if alot of the websites simply don't bother especially the smaller ones. The big ones likely will comply but smaller ones likely won't. 

Then they'll probably be blocked, which is not ideal...

[Doobeedoo]

I just love the collective "don't touch our porn"! 

[Eduard the weeb]

This is a weird time, with social media and the internet we are probably the most sexual generations ever, however we are also trying to "protect" the children, however if you get to good at "protecting" then you end up like South Korea were they believe there may be no ethnic Koreans in ~2700 if they don't have drastic action because in the 1960's and 1970's they tried stopping the nuclear families with 5-6 kids and now the death rate is higher then the birth rate in many Asian nations.

 

The truth is with or without porn and internet access people will become sexual "awakened" however ( trying not to be political now lol ) in the midwest of the US in particular with evangelical teaching taking over, the internet has become one of the main ways to learn about that stuff in those areas.

[DrMacintosh]

32 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

( trying not to be political now lol ) in the midwest of the US in particular with evangelical teaching taking over, the internet has become one of the main ways to learn about that stuff in those areas.

It’s not political if it’s reality. 

[Sniperfox47]

I also don't really understand what they're trying to protect these children for. So they see porn, what's the big deal?

 

The studies I've been able to find on the subject matter just seem to point out that it's causing earlier sexual engagement between young persons, but why do we care?

 

The only *real* negative side I can see is that younger persons are more likely to engage high-risk sexual behaviors, but the degree to which that increases is fairly directly correlated to the lack of sex ed meaning it could be combatted by just improving sex education at a younger age.

 

And I mean the correlation between seeing porn and increased high risk sexual activity is roughly on par to listening to hypersexualized or sexually degrading music. Are we going to create a age restriction on that too?

 

The chances of just randomly stumbling into a porn site on the internet unless you're looking for it is pretty minimal. You're *far* more likely to stumble onto it on a social media site like Tumblr or Snapchat, or accidentally find it in your parent's search history, none of which does this actually stop.

 

At the point where a kid is going actively looking for it, as mentioned by many others, this also isn't going to impede them.

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The only *real* negative side I can see is that younger persons are more likely to engage high-risk sexual behaviors, but the degree to which that increases is fairly directly correlated to the lack of sex ed meaning it could be combatted by just improving sex education at a younger age.

Yep, but in my country if you live in “The Bible Belt” it The South sex ed is almost non-existent yet people wonder why we have issues............

 

*insert aptly captioned Eric Andre meme here*

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I also don't really understand what they're trying to protect these children for. So they see porn, what's the big deal?

 

The studies I've been able to find on the subject matter just seem to point out that it's causing earlier sexual engagement between young persons, but why do we care?

That might be fine for adolescents, but not for prepubescent children... the idea is to prevent exposure to things they aren't mature enough to comprehend and interpret correctly. Porn is hardly a realistic portrayal of sex and a young child may end up thinking that's all a relationship is about. I don't necessarily agree the government should be stepping in but I  can see their point.

[AshleyAshes]

16 hours ago, Terryv said:

Am I the only one who thinks this will be easily circumvented.

Easily, yes.  Though, and to be clear I'm not SUPPORTING this, it would significantly increase the barrier to entry for minors to access porn.  In that the current barrier to entry is '...Are Mom and Dad around?  No?  *incognito window*"  The current level of effort is literally only a notch above zero.

 

If you need one of these keys you'll someone to supply you with one, almost certianly an adult.  They'll cost money so who ever 'hooks you up' will probably want money, maybe even some profit.  Or maybe you know someone and you share the key?  They still needed a hookup.  You could try a VPN but those can cost money and online payments can be tricky to a lot of minors.  Free VPNs can be pretty bad.

 

I'm not saying that a LOT of people couldn't circumvent it cause for sure they would, but you'd def see lots of minors with no useful connections who will be unable to do so as well.  But again, this is because there are currently no meaningful obstacles to minors accessing porn on the internet beyond just getting caught by their parents. 

[Fred Castellum]

The whole thing seems like a bad idea to me. 

[Sniperfox47]

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That might be fine for adolescents, but not for prepubescent children... the idea is to prevent exposure to things they aren't mature enough to comprehend and interpret correctly. Porn is hardly a realistic portrayal of sex and a young child may end up thinking that's all a relationship is about. I don't necessarily agree the government should be stepping in but I  can see their point.

Because God forbid parents actually educate their children on these topics, explain things, and help their children understand.

 

For a second I forgot that the only thing people are more afraid of than sexuality itself is educating about sexuality.

[Brooksie359]

29 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That might be fine for adolescents, but not for prepubescent children... the idea is to prevent exposure to things they aren't mature enough to comprehend and interpret correctly. Porn is hardly a realistic portrayal of sex and a young child may end up thinking that's all a relationship is about. I don't necessarily agree the government should be stepping in but I  can see their point.

They likely won't even understand what they are looking at much less be influenced by it. I mean if you don't understand what's going on then how are supposed to what it is a portrayal of? If they do know what sex is then likely already have an idea of what it is like and won't be very influenced by it. I mean people grow up and mature and their views on many things will change over time so the best way to combat this is not to try and protect them from it but teach them what is healthy through sex ed and other influences. 

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Because God forbid parents actually educate their children on these topics, explain things, and help their children understand.

 

For a second I forgot that the only thing people are more afraid of than sexuality itself is educating about sexuality.

There is a time and place for everything, just as you don't learn about differential equations in first grade you probably shouldn't be learning too much about sex either at that age... and the last thing you want is for the child to get a distorted image from elsewhere before they are ready. It's not the worst thing that could happen, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be avoided if possible. Desensitization through overexposure is a real problem - you end up missing out on some of the best parts of life because they've been trivialized to your mind.

11 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They likely won't even understand what they are looking at much less be influenced by it. I mean if you don't understand what's going on then how are supposed to what it is a portrayal of? If they do know what sex is then likely already have an idea of what it is like and won't be very influenced by it. I mean people grow up and mature and their views on many things will change over time so the best way to combat this is not to try and protect them from it but teach them what is healthy through sex ed and other influences. 

By "understand" I don't mean figure out what the people in the video are doing - kids are immature, not stupid. The thing is that there is more to a sexual encounter than the physical act, and none of that is evident from an isolated piece of pornography. I'm not advocating against education, on the contrary - but as I said, there's a time and a place for that and it's better if by then the child doesn't have a warped preconception.

[Brooksie359]

10 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There is a time and place for everything, just as you don't learn about differential equations in first grade you probably shouldn't be learning too much about sex either at that age... and the last thing you want is for the child to get a distorted image from elsewhere before they are ready. It's not the worst thing that could happen, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be avoided if possible. Desensitization through overexposure is a real problem - you end up missing out on some of the best parts of life because they've been trivialized to your mind.

By "understand" I don't mean figure out what the people in the video are doing - kids are immature, not stupid. The thing is that there is more to a sexual encounter than the physical act, and none of that is evident from an isolated piece of pornography. I'm not advocating against education, on the contrary - but as I said, there's a time and a place for that and it's better if by then the child doesn't have a warped preconception.

There is difference between ignorant and stupid. Before puberty alot of kids don't know what sex even is. Anyways the point is that the government shouldn't be regulating the internet like this. It's a waste of time and money to accomplish very little. 

[Thaldor]

Next in news:

Quote

"British government is thinking making "lock police force" which sole duty is to uphold "The bedroom lock" database and carry annual inspections that the registered bedroom locks are up to date and fill every requirment for a bedroom lock"

 

"The Prime Minister comments that the requirment for parents to get the bedroom lock has been very successful to stop children seeing their parents doing something that the child is not mature enough to see and save the parents from the embarashment of explaining and teaching their child real life."

 

I'm probably going to some day even be the most awesome dad ever or the worst father of the year, because I'm going to let my child do just as I have done. If he/she wants to watch movie X at the age of four, he/she can watch it as long as I have seen it before or we watch it together (only movie I didn't see before age 7 was The Shining and Psycho). If he/she wants to play game X at the same age, yeah no problem as long as he/she pays for it or it's birthday, xmas, whatever gift or I just feel like buying it. And if he/she gets shocked by what comes, well it's just a movie/game, those are actors using toy guns and ketchup, no one was hurt and everybody gets back up, but don't do it in real life.

 

IMO if you aren't mature enough to talk about bees and flowers and teach your kid what's real and what's not, please don't get kids. If "accident" happens, well time to abort or mature fast. What are you going to tell your kid if he/she dashes into your bedroom in the middle of night while you are having some "adult fun"? God sake, the little fellow will be more shocked by that than any porn found on the internet with the limited vocabulary they possess. They will find the porn sooner or later, no matter what you try to stop them and if you try to stop them, well, hard to break the truth, but the sooner they find it because it is "the forbidden fruit" and then they will find it and keep it as a secret that they found it and you will have no chance to explain them properly what they found. Just like alcohol or smokes, everybody knows that if you leave a kid and a vase into a room and tell the kid that touching the vase is forbidden, you will probably never see that vase in one piece again.

 

Also as a counter-ball, how about you mr. Britain (not pointed to anyone in particular, just to the whole British government), think about the children. If this kind of system was to become, it would be very, very big news and every headline will be filled with it and everybody is going to talk about it. And then there's that there is no complete system yet in place. 1+1=2, you just exposed millions of kids to porn by making a law to ban them from watching porn. Excelent job!

[Sniperfox47]

53 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There is a time and place for everything, just as you don't learn about differential equations in first grade you probably shouldn't be learning too much about sex either at that age... and the last thing you want is for the child to get a distorted image from elsewhere before they are ready. 

I don't know about where you live, but Sex Ed starts in grade 2 here, or at least did a few years ago. The curriculum has been restructured since I last saw it, but I believe it's still grade 2.

 

These studies I'm referring to are from states with very little sex ed, around the ages 10-14 (grade 5+).  If you're worried about your 6yo (Grade 1) accidentally stumbling onto a porn site, you're doing something wrong as a parent. More than sex ed at that point you need to be teaching them internet safety and best practices.

 

A law like this isn't a substitute for parental supervision and education any more than "parental control" software is. As mentioned it does nothing to prevent them stumbling onto this stuff on social media.

 

What is your 6-8yo child going to looking at online that they're going to accidentally stumble across a full blown porn site?

[Jtalk4456]

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

1. Of course, but then again most kids wouldn't know all the tactics - if this pushes kids to educate themselves about hiding their tracks online and basic networking it may still be worth it. Besides, I think this is more relevant when it comes to preventing young children from accidentally finding porn or other potentially harmful content (I don't think anyone mentioned this, but online gambling may also be affected); most adolescents don't really need this sort of protection in my opinion.

2. Enforcement would be pretty simple, one report and the website gets a cease and desist letter, followed by an ISP level ban. I don't really see why websites wouldn't want to comply anyway, the effort required and the potential traffic loss would be minimal compared to the risk of a nation wide ban.

3. The proposed solution is pretty close to being completely unidentifiable - the clerk doesn't know you (hopefully) and no registers need to be kept, you just walk in, show a document and get a code. It's just a little embarassing to show up at the post office and request what is essentially a porn pass... although I'm sure there will be young adults selling codes to kids from day one.

2. do you really think the government can force facebook to stop showing bad content?? in theory the enforcement sounds simple enough, but in the real world, many would slip through the cracks.

3. Why does everyone keep mentioning the post office? Is there something i'm missing here?

[aezakmi]