Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Bowdon on July 17, 2017, 02:43:13 PM
-
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/07/uk-isp-blocking-age-verification-porn-websites-april-2018.html (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/07/uk-isp-blocking-age-verification-porn-websites-april-2018.html)
The Government has confirmed that, from April 2018 onwards, they will require broadband ISPs to block access to pornographic websites that fail to introduce at least a Credit Card based Age Verification system. This is intended to stop children being able to access naughty images and videos.
The measure was pushed into law earlier this year as part of the Digital Economy Act 2017, although until now some of the details have remained quite vague. Today the BBC has revealed a little bit more and also published an introduction date. It’s still expected that the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) will be tasked with regulating the system.
PART 3 Online pornography
14. Internet pornography: requirement to prevent access by persons under 18
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if the person makes pornographic material available on the internet to persons in the United Kingdom on a commercial basis other than in a way that secures that, at any given time, the material is not normally accessible by persons under the age of 18.
Once again big brother government is using the guise of (ready to all say...) "...its for the children" to smash privacy and is encourage private business to store what sites people can go on.
I already know 2 sites were credit card companies (and paypal) have disagreed with the subject of a website and refused them a way of accepting donations. Both of those sites werent of a pornographic nature. These credit card companies are already abusing their role.
Plus lets not forget, there used to be age verification on adult sites many years ago, and it was all abandoned as extremely illegal sites were piggy-backing on legal sites and it allowed very extreme sites to be able to have joint subscriptions, which then led to massive 'porn busts', only for it to come out how many fake credit card details were on the system. Thats why leaving age verification in the hands of credit card companies and their associated business partners was abandoned.
It now seems the government doesnt care as long as people are watched.
I am starting to ask serious questions about the government (of all parties).. this, along with them trying to cripple encryption, is the government trying to cause a disaster? There is only so many times we can pass them off as clueless or mad... when it keeps happening over and over.
-
It's not really going to stop children looking if they really want to its it, mum or dads credit card is usually around somewhere, and they only need to photograph it once and they'd be able use it for ages verification. Unless further security factors are in place, which isn't usually the case.
-
its silly, kid gets on these sites by borrowing mummy or daddy's credit card, they hardly going to fail a credit card age verification check.
-
People keep voting for authoritarian, illiberal parties. Last election they did so in record numbers. We get the politicians we vote for. People in the UK seem to really want to be told what to do.
-
Practically impossible to "block" access - the stuff is everywhere, porn sites, forums, commercial, non-commercial - we're in wishful thinking "evil bit" territory here.
If it were possible to actually block I'd support it, kids can have their minds perverted by the bottomless pit of thrills Internet pornography is - not the same as old style magazines at all - but it's not possible. Education is probably a better weapon.
-
I am not a parent but from what I have read, and am prepared to believe, a significant proportion of children who access these sites do so accidentally, being tricked into clicking links etc. Surely this proposal will help in such cases? And Yes, the kids could use parents' cards, but are we assuming the parents don't check bank statements?
Also, it's actually nothing new. When I was a young teenager (1960s) we could ask for cigarettes and be served, we could ask for fireworks & matches, and be served... never challenged. But smutty magazines resided out of reach on the top shelf. I'm not aware of any of my pals in those days being granted a sale. Not that it ever occurred to me to try, of course. :angel:
Yes, it was possible in those days for a kid to discover his Dad's collection and share it with pals, and that did happen, but it still prevented the widespread proliferation of such material among kids.
If they can make it work (which I doubt) I'd fully support it. If there is a risk, I'd say it was the possibility of legitimate sites being accidentally blacklisted. I'd like to see some solid guards against that, don't know what's in place?
-
Practically impossible to "block" access - the stuff is everywhere, porn sites, forums, commercial, non-commercial - we're in wishful thinking "evil bit" territory here.
If it were possible to actually block I'd support it, kids can have their minds perverted by the bottomless pit of thrills Internet pornography is - not the same as old style magazines at all - but it's not possible. Education is probably a better weapon.
Education is the problem, not the answer. Anyone that has been "Highly undereducated " or to be more exact "indoctrinated." by the state at any level in the last forty years, bears testament to it. Why they even speak the same "programmed phrases" every where you turn, you can spot the effected by the use of the now prevalent drivel speak, ie a problem is now an "issue" , as they "move forward " after "reaching out" etc etc..
Perhaps, (as an example of pre pubescent, deliberate natural development interference / alteration ) not asking 4 year olds which sex they would like to be, and criticizing Johnny for not wanting to wear a dress, may prevent said Johnny and Jenny from seeking extra curricular answers online, but then, being taught by someone who they cannot identify as a man of woman, won't be helping anyway.
Even more disturbing that their parents cannot provide answers for them as they are "petrified of the state under threat of " child confiscation" and it's "we are right you are wrong, and you are not permitted to instruct your child anything , that deviates from our program, under the threat of such.
The statement "People of the UK seem to really want to be told what to do" is unfortunately, an accurate assessment.
The malleable "drones" who speak the double speak are here now, but with none of them able to formulate any alternative personal point of view without fear of censure and programmed to bleat at the first sign of intellectual deviance, the future is bleak indeed.That they would further limit Internet freedoms should be of no surprise to anyone, perhaps it's only heterosexual activities that they wish to stop being broadcast, who knows.
Limiting access to pornography, whilst giving your private details to yet another corporation is the least of our worries, or should I say, it should be, but apparently is not.
Remember, the only part of the government that listens to you , is GCHQ, and their corporate friends.
-
And Yes, the kids could use parents' cards, but are we assuming the parents don't check bank statements?
Surely as it's just a verification check nothing will show on the statement, well that is until some dodgy website uses the card details elsewhere.
-
and if it does show and parents find out, by then the kid has done what they needed to do.
-
Surely as it's just a verification check nothing will show on the statement, well that is until some dodgy website uses the card details elsewhere.
I think you'll find a small token payment has to be taken, as part of the verification. It may be refunded again, not sure, but that would still show on statements.
As far as I remember that's how it worked when I had to overcome Vodafone's age barrier a few years ago, after they mistakenly blocked an entirely innocent website that had nothing at all to do with adult material.
-
7LM has just said it ISP should restrict all this carp just something me and friends talked about on Saturday the Internet is great for Information but it also has a DARK side and that part needs to be restricted the amount of kids watching beheadings :sick: if it were up to me the whole Internet would be for 18+ only
-
Surely as it's just a verification check nothing will show on the statement, well that is until some dodgy website uses the card details elsewhere.
..and that right there is why the age verification in the older days of the net got compromised by some REALLY dodgy-sites that were piggy-backing on regular porn sites, and because of that it meant some people got roped in to national investigations.
We've been here before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_Check (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_Check)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_Verification_System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_Verification_System)
(there used to be password sites that you could go to and look up account names and passwords of adult sites... not that *I* ever did that *ahem*)
What I don't like is the hypocracy. Kids can watch what is softcore porn live on freeview from at least 10pm on multiple channels. Women topless and being suggestive. We've also got newspapers, especially online versions being very suggestive, the dailymail website that probably gets more visitors than any of the other newspaper sites, seem to love the word "flaunt", as well as photographs which wouldn't be out of place in a playboy peeping tom story photo page.
This is why I suspect this isn't really about censoring the internet, but more about watching what people do. If it then becomes normal and accepted to pay a small £1 transaction to websites then if respectable John Bloggs wants to stand as an MP against the government, someone will push the button and see "John Bloggs has been a naughty boy"... *Picks up the phone to the newspapers
It is a shame that the genie is out of the bottle when it comes to sexual matters. I wish things would have been more tightly regulated. I'm not sure I agree with more sex education. Did anyone only learn about sex from a school class room? When it comes to sexual corruption it is a symptom of a lack of relationship education imho.
-
If 'they' want to watch what people do, they can already see that, with the tools at their disposal.
If they feel they've missed something, they can phone a friend, and just ask Google or
Apple what we were doing and where, at 3 o'clock last Tuesday. Or they'll ask the supermarket loyalty card database whether we've been eating our 5 a day, or exceeding alcohol guidelines. Not to mention all the Apps and services with very dodgy privacy policies, that nobody ever reads. And of course, these sources are in it for profit, they will sell the data to whoever is willing to pay, not just governments.
As often stated I worry rather more about the data in these commercial databases, rather than any governmental 'big brother'. I'd rather not have any surveillance at all but given that we are where we are, it's the commercial surveillance that worries me the most. I really don't feel that this new step affects my worry levels much at all. :)
-
People keep voting for authoritarian, illiberal parties. Last election they did so in record numbers. We get the politicians we vote for. People in the UK seem to really want to be told what to do.
Right ... and the alternative to the two main nanny staters would be? The Lib Dems? Who have trouble with the simple concept of democracy(among other things (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lib-dem-attack-on-shami-chakrabarti-backfires-as-investigatory-powers-bill-ammendment-pulled_uk_57fd089be4b01fa2b9057ba5))?
-
This is unworkable, and probably wont happen
-
Whenever I collect an online order from Screwfix (nothing to do with porn) I have to use my card and enter my pin to verify I am the person who placed the order, this token as they call it never shows on my statement.
-
Right ... and the alternative to the two main nanny staters would be? The Lib Dems? Who have trouble with the simple concept of democracy(among other things (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lib-dem-attack-on-shami-chakrabarti-backfires-as-investigatory-powers-bill-ammendment-pulled_uk_57fd089be4b01fa2b9057ba5))?
I used to be an activist for a smaller political party and the amount of people on the door that give the "My grandfather voted labour, my father voted labour, so I'll vote labour" speech was a lot of people. Also there are large areas of people that just dont vote. Some will be because they are clueless, get bored of politics... But quite a few people don't want to register the house they are in for 'benefit reasons'. I think this means they sleep at different peoples houses when they arent supposed to. This tends to happen on the poorer estates, or "sink estates" as they are known in political circles. I often think if more people voted in these areas then the parties we get might be more reflective.
-
Whenever I collect an online order from Screwfix (nothing to do with porn) I have to use my card and enter my pin to verify I am the person who placed the order, this token as they call it never shows on my statement.
that is a lot different in reality, then entering your cc details on a web page, that may have been compromised and also why should you not be able to browse and watch FREE content anonymously, Also i have a broadband service from your home you have to be over 18 anyway, So the responsibility should lie with the account holder ie parents it's not the job of the nanny state
-
@tommy45, I agree, was just pointing out that a verification check wouldn't necessarily show on a statement. In fact I would expect these websites to introduce a charge to cover the costs and then some.
-
I posted the following up on TBB earlier today, but will expand on it a bit:
"In my mind this will not stop children accessing porn because as already mentioned, if they really want to access it they will use a VPN or could use TOR. One would think the government would already know this, but as politicians on the whole know nothing about how the internet works, maybe they don't know. Assuming they do know, then the agenda is probably nothing to do with stopping child access to porn but everything to do with banning VPN's further down the line when they can show that age verification didn't work."
The entire history of government involvement in ANYTHING remotely related to IT has always ended in one or more of the following, disaster, over budget, never ending up working properly or compromised security wise.
Politicians and and civil service management have little to no grasp as to how the internet works, GCHQ on the other hand knows exactly.
As i said in the TBB post, this is all to do with stopping end to end encryption in the uk and is is part of a "long game" the government and security services are playing. The people that come up with idea to "protect the children" know full well that CC age verification will never work, it isn't supposed to. Once they can hang the figures out to prove it hasn't worked they can then move on to VPN's and encryption in general, because of course they will have the proof that all the "children" are now using VPN's.
-
@tommy45, I agree, was just pointing out that a verification check wouldn't necessarily show on a statement. In fact I would expect these websites to introduce a charge to cover the costs and then some.
Here's a link to an old o2 q&a that explains their process. It's all I've been able to find. They take a £1 charge and credit it to the mobile account, specifically to ensure it appears on statements
http://news.o2.co.uk/2011/03/03/mobile-phones-and-age-verification-your-questions-answered/
-
As i said in the TBB post, this is all to do with stopping end to end encryption in the uk and is is part of a "long game" the government and security services are playing. The people that come up with idea to "protect the children" know full well that CC age verification will never work, it isn't supposed to. Once they can hang the figures out to prove it hasn't worked they can then move on to VPN's and encryption in general, because of course they will have the proof that all the "children" are now using VPN's.
Pretty much. Once the private sector fails to achieve mission impossible then the government can step in and we have our own Great Firewall, all in the name of thinking of the children.
A big initial driver for all this was Claire Perry, Devizes MP, via Premier Christian Media, and others from the God Squad taking exception to the ungodly content available on the Internet.
-
Pretty much. Once the private sector fails to achieve mission impossible then the government can step in and we have our own Great Firewall, all in the name of thinking of the children.
A big initial driver for all this was Claire Perry, Devizes MP, via Premier Christian Media, and others from the God Squad taking exception to the ungodly content available on the Internet.
I don't think the god squad has anything to do with it, more like more PC nanny state seeking to control us
-
Not really.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11822874
Little background on one of the stats:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/britain-considers-isp-filters-to-save-the-children-flawed-logic/
https://www.care.org.uk/news/latest-news/breakthrough-fight-keep-children-safe-online
http://www.christianpost.com/news/uk-group-pushes-email-campaign-to-protect-kids-from-internet-porn-48845/
Safermedia pushed Perry's report, amongst many other activities.
http://www.safermedia.org.uk/Images/press-release-online-inquiry.pdf
http://www.safermedia.org.uk/campaigntimeline.htm
They are most definitely of a religious bent.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/dec/23/internet-porn-religious-campaigners-children-sexualisation
While blaming the nanny state is the in thing the God Squad's involvement is pretty clear here. Once it's in place it provides a great opportunity for the state to get some quite illiberal filtering running but sadly the state can do as it pleases and there's realistically nothing we can do about it.