Online Safety Bill - Thoughts?

[Blue and true]

This thread is a fucking embarrassment. People moaning about the government prying on your privacy and collecting your personal information? How many people pay their vehicle tax online? How many pay their TV licence online? The government already know who you are, an uploaded picture of yourself is not something they would struggle to get outside of this legislation if they truly wanted to. Driving licence? Hello?

The moaning of intrusion is also ironic when many of these people will plaster pictures of their family on social media, sending them to a sprawling city of servers in the hills of California; well guess what, those pics are no longer yours. You forfeited that ownership the moment you uploaded them onto the internet. We're already living in Orwellian times, some just don't want to admit it.

This new law is a good thing, it may be incomplete and the desperate will try to find work arounds, but anything that works towards safeguarding a child's online activity is a good thing.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

This thread is a fucking embarrassment. People moaning about the government prying on your privacy and collecting your personal information? How many people pay their vehicle tax online? How many pay their TV licence online? The government already know who you are, an uploaded picture of yourself is not something they would struggle to get outside of this legislation if they truly wanted to. Driving licence? Hello?

The moaning of intrusion is also ironic when many of these people will plaster pictures of their family on social media, sending them to a sprawling city of servers in the hills of California; well guess what, those pics are no longer yours. You forfeited that ownership the moment you uploaded them onto the internet. We're already living in Orwellian times, some just don't want to admit it.

This new law is a good thing, it may be incomplete and the desperate will try to find work arounds, but anything that works towards safeguarding a child's online activity is a good thing.

The only reason I can see why people would disapprove of this legislation, remember, it’s not Labour legislation, is because they are worried about their own habits and behaviours.

Ps. The thread isn’t embarrassing, it’s the people.

 

[meltonblue]

Kids do indeed need protection from the adult internet.

As a parent I do my very best to make sure mine don’t access stuff I don’t want them too but the reality is it’s incredibly difficult and this legislation is half baked and simply won’t work.

It took 10 seconds for anyone, if they so choose to get around it.

Porn is not illegal. Why should you have to give your identity away on the internet to view perfectly legal material when everyone knows the one thing you have to do on the web is protect your identity at all costs because fraudsters and criminals will ruin you if they get it?

It’s only legal if you’re providing it to someone over 18.

 

[BobKowalski]

Okay, thought I would give this age verification a go :)

I can now watch porn. Huzzah!

I didn’t do the Yoti app and went for the selfie. It was simple. It scans your face. The end.

Bit of an anti-climax tbh.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Okay, thought I would give this age verification a go :)

I can now watch porn. Huzzah!

I didn’t do the Yoti app and went for the selfie. It was simple. It scans your face. The end.

Bit of an anti-climax tbh.

If you want to watch plan, watch porn, or hateful stuff. Why would you need to hide it unless you are childlike, believing somebody is watching over your shoulder.

Own it, get on with it, but if you go too far, understand that you will be pulled for looking at illegal stuff.

That illegal stuff, you know it’s wrong? Right?

 

[BobKowalski]

If you want to watch plan, watch porn, or hateful stuff. Why would you need to hide it unless you are childlike, believing somebody is watching over your shoulder.

Own it, get on with it, but if you go too far, understand that you will be pulled for looking at illegal stuff.

That illegal stuff, you know it’s wrong? Right?

Thanks. I think. To be honest I’m not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. Did I miss part of the conversation?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Thanks. I think. To be honest I’m not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. Did I miss part of the conversation?

It was a ‘Thanks’, showing how easy it was to get a VPN. It’s my typing with this site. Probably too fast to catch up with all the ad’s that are trying to take over my page.

I don’t like the change to 20 posts. Even more do I dislike the quadrupling of shit ad’s that we’re now getting.

The adverts remind me of a 70s catalogue, it’s that bad!

 

[BlueAnorak]

Is EFF.Org one of those that fight for freedom of speech and if young children are drawn into extreme hate, porn, and personal harm, it’s all with the understanding that they should be allowed to say/show what they want?

The more these organisations, groups and people promote these things, the more I realise it’s these type of people who need their open (internet) borders to get their (unscrupulous) messages across. I say that in the mildest terms.

Havnt a clue.
The piece just covered my problems with the act. Age validation is important - but sharing identity information with anyone must be ultra secure, trustworthy, independent of government and ideally anonymous - you present a token that that is proof of age-validation carried out by a validation provider this token is validated by the age-restricted content site against the validation token provider and the validation token provider takes action to confirm with you in real-time that this interaction is you

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Okay, thought I would give this age verification a go :)

I can now watch porn. Huzzah!

I didn’t do the Yoti app and went for the selfie. It was simple. It scans your face. The end.

Bit of an anti-climax tbh.

It often is with porn…

 

[Hertzblue]

It was a ‘Thanks’, showing how easy it was to get a VPN. It’s my typing with this site. Probably too fast to catch up with all the ad’s that are trying to take over my page.

I don’t like the change to 20 posts. Even more do I dislike the quadrupling of shit ad’s that we’re now getting.

The adverts remind me of a 70s catalogue, it’s that bad!

70's catalogue - those were the days ..
Fuck you Pornhub and age verification .

Kids these days ... don't know they're born, the things we had to do etc etc

 

[BobKowalski]

It often is with porn…

I’m glad someone got the joke :)

 

[BlueHammer85]

It is there apparently to stop young people accessing harmful subjects.
We have the most tech savvy youth generation, it is naive to thing they won't get round these rules.

Also many won't have the ID they are asking for, so who is it aimed at along with under 18s? and why do adults need to be policed beyond comitting a crime (and I am sure having a wank in your house isn't illegal yet)


smacks of another new new labours micromanagement anal obsession with control.


If I want to watch some adult star flicking her bean on a legal adult movie surely thats my business and not the governments ;-)

So why can’t the majority of tech savvy youth access gambling sites and place a bet ?

 

[BlueAnorak]

I'm even more concerned about requiring backdoors to end-to-end encryption. I'd forgotten or mentally parked that to be honest.

I also read an interesting piece earlier today regards accessing porn. The authors drew a very specific distinction between content producers, whose "customers" are used to paying for content, and on the other hand aggregators like Pornhub etc, where virtually no-one does. The latter represents the vast majority of porn being casually viewed, and approaching 100% amongst the under age group.

The authors suggested the reality is 90%+ of people will NOT verify in order to access those sites. They will either use a VPN, or if that is too challenging, they will simply go to a some other smaller site under the government's radar which does not require ID checks. And then there will be whack-a-mole adding sites to lists and new ones appearing.

I really should not need to add this, but given recent comments, I feel it is necessry: For the mentally challenged, I am not saying I am a supporter of Jimmy Saville. I agree about the need to do something. I have also stated that on balance this is just - and only just - better than doing nothing. But it needs serious revision, and quickly. As it stands, it cannot be a long term solution. It won't work,and carries all sorts of privacy concerns and risks.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[urban genie]

So why can’t the majority of tech savvy youth access gambling sites and place a bet ?

Without specific knowledge of numbers regarding gambling site visits by under 18s I cannot say if they do or don't try, plus gambling sites require spending money and as has been mentioned, the sites visited which this rule applies normally offer adult content you can access without payment, if the law had been you require to pay a fee to gain access you would deter more young (and older) people than if it send us your ID or photo.


The way I see it, this is aimed at stopping children being subjected to these sites and also more extreme content, that is something we all want, but the sad fact is like in our day and the littlewoods catalogue, once puberty hits if young teenagers want to find something to get off on they will find it, I mean how many of us actually went into newagents and bought porn mags? it never stopped us finding something else, and looking at the amount of scantily clad "influencers" all over social media this won't stop people finding porn somehow

Though this rule may help, it is a band aid with a heavy big brother personal privacy concerns which I don't think has been. thought through fully, people addicted enough who are paying for adult content already give their details freely anyway when signing up, the casual visitor won't, and will find other outlets, which in itself raises concerns on what they will search for, where and what means used.

Finally everyone is focussing on the porn aspect, this bill isn't specifically for just this as it says it is to prevent access to "harmful" content, this is in itself vague and giving Ofcom broad scope to determine this is inconsistent, alongside the powers to access your messages is a concern.

I am all for protecting our kids from online harm and the restricting porn access side isn't really my concern about this, I am fine with tighter controls on it, but the other side of it that infringes on personal data and legal sites places that kids will not be remotely intrested in visiting that are being thrown in as a result of the lack of clarity.

This is sledge hammer to crack a nut again, a theme that has ran consistnetly through major government policy.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Agreed on all counts.

And just to add, Offcom reckons that around 6,000 porn sites will now need to have age checks. That sounded a lot but there's a lot of porn out there. So I wondered how many porn sites there are, and asked Google. This is what I got:

"It's impossible to know the exact number of pornographic websites, but estimates range from millions to billions. One estimate in 2012 placed the number at around 25 million"

Good luck trying to get that lot to put age checks in place! Of course some of them will be very obscure and perhaps irrelevant but if there's genuinely millions of them, it really just shows how completely unworkable this is. If the government get their 6,000 targeted sites protected, that would mean 99.98% of the above would be untouched.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

And just to add, Offcom reckons that around 6,000 porn sites will now need to have age checks. That sounded a lot but there's a lot of porn out there. So I wondered how many porn sites there are, and asked Google. This is what I got:

"It's impossible to know the exact number of pornographic websites, but estimates range from millions to billions. One estimate in 2012 placed the number at around 25 million"

Good luck trying to get that lot to put age checks in place! Of course some of them will be very obscure and perhaps irrelevant but if there's genuinely millions of them, it really just shows how completely unworkable this is. If the government get their 6,000 targeted sites protected, that would mean 99.98% of the above would be untouched.

Anybody who thinks the Online Safety Act is actually about child protection and porn must be naive. That’s just a cynical distraction/fig leaf for broad powers that will monitor, censor and eradicate any dissent or criticism the Government of the day wishes to silence. We seem to be turning into North Korea. Very disturbing.

 

[inchy14]

So why can’t the majority of tech savvy youth access gambling sites and place a bet ?

Because they’re probably not that desperate.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Because they’re probably not that desperate.

but if they was it's extremely difficult, we only have to have the same mind set for harmful sites.

 

[Blue and true]

Anybody who thinks the Online Safety Act is actually about child protection and porn must be naive. That’s just a cynical distraction/fig leaf for broad powers that will monitor, censor and eradicate any dissent or criticism the Government of the day wishes to silence. We seem to be turning into North Korea. Very disturbing.

You've clearly never read a book on North Korea.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Havnt a clue.
The piece just covered my problems with the act. Age validation is important - but sharing identity information with anyone must be ultra secure, trustworthy, independent of government and ideally anonymous - you present a token that that is proof of age-validation carried out by a validation provider this token is validated by the age-restricted content site against the validation token provider and the validation token provider takes action to confirm with you in real-time that this interaction is you

Agreed. By pure coincidence, some months ago when this legislation was not on the radar, Google launched their ID verification service in the UK and being a technophile, I thought I'd try it. It's great - you upload your passport and let it video you and then it gets verified. Once it's approved you have an ID Pass in your Google Wallet, and it can be used to prove ONLY what a certain website needs proof of. And not a load of details you don't want them to have.

I have no issues with this. It's great. I trust Google to keep my data safe.

What concerns me is that sites are not required to use this. They can ask for other forms of verification if they want. Like asking you to upload your dad's passport!