> a statement like “we should stop young kids watching porn” is so agreeable that only the nuttiest amongst us could even begin to disagree with it
I mostly disagree with it. I don't want prepubescent children watching porn of course, but the vast majority of them aren't doing that with any regularity, nor do they have any desire to. It isn't a problem that demands a robust solution with serious downsides.
I do think an HTTP header saying "no adult content" that can be turned on via both simple browser settings and password-protected parental controls is a good idea. That would reduce accidental or casual exposure to porn and have no meaningful downsides.
exasperaited · 22m ago
> I mostly disagree with it. I don't want prepubescent children watching porn of course, but the vast majority of them aren't doing that with any regularity,
This genuinely needs qualification and I suspect, based on discussions I have had with friends who are teachers and teaching assistants, that you would be horrified by how often very young children (seven, eight, nine years old) are viewing material that only a couple of generations ago would not have been seen in any legal publication in the UK.
> It isn't a problem that demands a robust solution with serious downsides.
This is an opinion, not a fact. I think I disagree, but I also disagree that websites asking you to verify you can access a particular link on a mobile device is a particularly serious downside (since that is one of the valid ways of age attestation in the UK -- it requires only that your mobile phone provider knows you are an adult, which they can establish in a number of ways).
arp242 · 12m ago
Since gambling laws have been relaxed in a number of countries over the last few years, there has been a rather concerning rise in teenage gambling addiction.
This is perhaps a better example than porn. I'd be much more worried about my 14-year old spending all of their (or my) money on gambling than having a wank every once in a while.
That said, I have accidentally landed on porn sites over the years (including in a demo in front of the entire company haha). I'm not part of the hyper-prudish American contingent where any form of nudity does irreparable trauma to a child, but ... there's some pretty wild stuff out there. It's not like when I was young and stay up late to sneakily watch a soft-core porn at midnight.
john01dav · 24m ago
I'd prefer the HTTP header be on the response. That way, it can't be used for fingerprinting and can easily put the website in a more fine grained category (e.g., porn, gore, political extremism) and the user agent can be configured to filter based on this. You could then create limited but present liability for mislabeling.
chasd00 · 22m ago
You’d have to come up with a technical spec on the category definitions though. For example, what is porn and what is political extremism? That has always been the struggle.
alexisread · 1h ago
It's mostly deliberate. Current petition to revoke it has half a million signatures, and the government have stated they will ignore that.
I mean, this was in the manifesto for both the major parties - this is really not what the petition website is for, and it was never going anywhere. X flagging protest footage as adult content is not the endgame of some great british elitist conspiracy.
arrowsmith · 45m ago
> both the major parties
The uniparty strikes again.
exasperaited · 37m ago
> X flagging protest footage as adult content is not the endgame of some great british elitist conspiracy.
No indeed, but it might be the beginning of a political campaign.
Havoc · 1h ago
>Solving problems in the online world is no longer a technical issue
Unfortunately I have zero faith in UK government having a moment of introspection here.
Instead of realizing it's not fit for purpose they'll double down on the broken approach. Fully expecting the "solution" here to be more regulation, more punishment, more cost, more killing small sites, more inconvenience, more technically unfeasible things (vpn ban).
Have written to my MP about it and unsurprisingly zero response. Useless government
k1t · 23m ago
Some sites (eg Google) offer child friendly versions where safe search is enforced, by accessing the site using a different set of IPs. Some DNS providers (eg Cloudflare 1.1.1.3) automatically resolve to those safe IPs when available.
The government should require sites with "unsafe" content to make "safe" versions available (eg force safe mode, readonly, no signup). Sites that are wholly inappropriate for children should self-report so they can be made unresolvable by child-safe DNS.
I'm not saying this specific implementation is the one true way, there's alternatives and ways to work around it. My real point is that the government should have forced sites to implement a consistent method of enforcing child safe mode, that can be easily set in a blanket fashion by the parent.
I'm sure whatever approach will be "too technical" for many parents at first, but once a consistent safe-mode method becomes clear, I'm sure UIs and parental controls will evolve to make it easy to enable.
holowoodman · 12m ago
The world isn't child-safe. Nobody would want children to play on a motorway, nobody would feed children xxxtra-hot curry of death, nobody would want children to drive a car or play with kitchen knifes.
Yet none of those far more problematic things comes with an age check, a fence, government controls or any special kinds of locks. We just educate children, and parents pay attention. Children that are too young to understand are put in special places like kindergarten, and even at a later age are often supervised by responsible adults.
I don't see why the internet should suddenly be all of that in reverse: Things like the online safety act require a whole world full of child-safe sites, and a child-impenetrable fence put around the few ones considered unsafe. This is totally ass-backwards.
exasperaited · 1h ago
This adds little to the debate.
A really interesting question would be to ask Aylo -- the world's largest pornographer -- why they are complying with the UK law and working with the regulator (population ~70M), but blocking whole states in response to the French law (population ~70M also) and Texas (population ~30M).
Because there obviously is some nuance and realpolitik here, when Aylo could very easily just block the UK too.
Has anyone done this journalism?
the_mitsuhiko · 17m ago
You can just go to their press releases [1].
> For years Aylo has publicly called for effective and enforceable age assurance solutions that protect minors online, while ensuring the safety and privacy of all users. The United Kingdom is the first country to present these same priorities demonstrably.
At least according to their release, the UK worked with them on it.
They also have an updated statement on France [2].
I mean, in the second or third round of this with the tories in 2016, Aylo (Mindgeek) were offering up their own solution for age verification. So they are not exactly unconflicted.
But the fact remains here that the world's largest porn company is not presenting this as a big civil liberties issue; they have moved on from that.
I think it's important to understand that Ofcom isn't just imposing nonsense policies without any consultation with the very people they are trying to regulate.
They may not be succeeding, and people can disagree with the policy outcome, but there's a huge amount of misinformation suggesting that this is simple thoughtless autocratic censorious wishful thinking, when it is in fact an attempt at a policy of industry self-regulation backed by penalties, which is how the ombudsman system is meant to work.
Also I think a lot of US commentators don't understand that mobile phone providers in the UK block adult content by default and have been moving to that position over the long term because it is the only practical parental control mechanism that exists in a market of devices with different operating systems, menus, and often absence of on-device parental control mechanisms at all.
rokkamokka · 1h ago
Perhaps they earn more from the UK market? Or decided it was easier to comply with that specific law.
exasperaited · 43m ago
It was a partly rhetorical question.
They have an age verification business.
But they also have a policy position about this and I'm not sure anyone has asked them to talk about those three decisions in the same sentence, as it were.
arp242 · 18m ago
> I mean, there are already a raft of tools available to stop children accessing harmful content online. There are filters and protections and safeguards on almost every device on the market today. If children are constantly accessing harmful content, it’s because these settings haven’t been enabled by parents or guardians.
These parental controls rather suck though; see e.g. [1]. This basically matches my own experience.
I do agree with the general gist of it, but it's not as simple as "these tools already exist, we just need to educate people". There is real work to be done here before this is usable.
And why isn't there a "Content-Rating: sex" or "Content-Rating: gambling" HTTP header? Or something along those lines? Why isn't there one easy "under 12" button on a phone to lock down tons of stuff, from PornHub to gambling sites to what-have-you? All of this is also a failing of the technical community to actually build reasonable and usable standards and tools, too.
> And why isn't there a "Content-Rating: sex" or "Content-Rating: gambling" HTTP header? Or something along those lines? Why isn't there one easy "under 12" button on a phone to lock down tons of stuff, from PornHub to gambling sites to what-have-you? All of this is also a failing of the technical community to actually build reasonable and usable standards and tools, too.
The mobile app world solved this years ago, and successfully generates age ratings for different countries based on developer interviews. (It's part of the app submission process).
There are problems with the mobile app world, but that isn't one of them.
VikingMiner · 29m ago
> In reality, this wouldn’t happen, because, generally, people understand that stabbings are a cultural issue, rather than a technical one
Many UK MPs don't understand this. I've heard of MPs making (moronic) suggestions such as selling kitchen knives without the point on it. I've literally seen this advertised as a solution on the news.
For whatever reason they don't seem to understand that literally anyone can make a shiv.
> I've heard of MPs making (moronic) suggestions such as selling kitchen knives without the point on it. I've literally seen this advertised as a solution on the news.
As someone who is clumsy and easily distracted, I have such a kitchen knife. They are commonly available. It works absolutely fine and it has three times minimised an injury that would have been nasty because I am an easily-distracted tired old idiot.
The point of a knife is only needed in a handful of kitchen applications. Most knives do not need to be able to stab at all. Only cut.
And combined with rules on the sales of longer blades that do have a point, this idea could genuinely be part of reducing knife crime (especially among the very youngest).
Because it does reduce access to knives that would be useful for stabbing, and it reduces the severity of injuries caused by the youngest in knife crime incidents. Without meaningfully affecting the kitchen usefulness of most small blades at all.
If I go to a supermarket and buy a long enough knife with a point on it, in theory I am asked to prove my age (in practice they laugh at the idea that I might not be young enough). The same is true for many (not all) products on Amazon, in fact.
The knife without a point on it did not trigger age verification. Nor does a boxcutter type thing, in practice; only retractible blades that don't snap off are on the list, AFAIK. (And only flick-knife-type mechanisms are banned).
I anticipate being downvoted for simply writing about this, but harm reduction through knife sales controls is not something that just stupid MPs think: it is supported by expert opinion.
Knife crime in the UK is a problem. It is still not a problem as severe per-capita as it is elsewhere, but we are trying measures to dissuade it.
Behaviour modification is not always stupid or evil; cultures do it all the time.
randallsquared · 49m ago
The author's main point is that the law isn't authoritarian enough to accomplish its aims. Sigh.
ok123456 · 44m ago
One of the positive side effects is that this will normalize the everyday use of Tor and Tor services. It won't just be for "those people" who are paranoid.
FerretFred · 45m ago
For me personally, I agree that wanting non-adults to be able get at online porn is commendable, and the fact that the tech industry is scrambling over itself to comply is evidence that this Act has teeth. However, what bugs me personally is that 1) The Government had nearly 2 years head start to set up a centralised ID repository, hopefully basing it on the same model as the DVLA and Passport Office sharing photo and other data. They did not. 2) Verification sites are not UK based, and therefore subject to the same mistrust with handling PII - which obviously can't be replaced. 3) There are no Goverment-created apps that can/should handle ID verification despite the fact that these would probably solve 95% of the problem. 4) Feature overreach: if you want to surveil your citizens, be honest for once and don't use the knee-jerk carrot of it "being for the kids" - we're not as stupid as you think (unfortunately).
That is all.
snickerdoodle12 · 37m ago
Everyone who is currently an adult and not geriatric could have had access to porn when they were a child. Is everyone fucked up? No? Why are you advocating for eliminating privacy for a made up problem?
qzx_pierri · 28m ago
This is my main frustration. Every teenager who wants to get porn will get porn regardless. VPN companies saw the writing on the wall years ago, and have been paying any YouTuber that will accept a sponsorship to shill for them.
I think the Online Safety Act is just setting a precedent that will be used further down the line to ban personal VPN usage.
"Children are using encrypted VPN tunnels to see porn online! Criminals also use those same VPN networks!"
Let me guess... There will be a law requiring ISPs to block VPN traffic if the VPN server's hostname isn't registered to a business and approved by the government.
UK: "Do you have a license for that VPN?!"
Anyway, download i2p, or Hyphanet/freenet
john01dav · 20m ago
China has been trying for decades to ban VPNs and they have failed. It's just an infinite cat and mouse game. There's no reason to think that the UK could succeed where China has failed.
FerretFred · 27m ago
I'm not! I know how easy it is to "discover" porn, but if sites adopted the RTA labelling system (https://rtalabel.net/?content=howto) and browsers obeyed that would go a long way to preventing those "accidental" discoveries. What my privacy concerns are were as per my post - no accountability from various global third parties and indiscriminate use of my PII.
XorNot · 31m ago
There is no possible way to achieve this goal without 4 happening though: or moreover, without it being possible.
Your prior 3 ideas all end up at "potential government surveillance of the people".
There is no way to implement verification like this without surveiling everyone, even if you don't plan to use the data - the possibility will always be there.
FerretFred · 24m ago
Yes, and this is one reason why we (Brits) have resisted Government ID cards for so long.
TheBigSalad · 50m ago
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I really hate this statement: Until we start thinking about the true test of any policy: implementation and enforcement.
The true test of policy should be the desired outcome behind that policy.
snickerdoodle12 · 35m ago
If the desired outcome is world peace and the means of which is murdering every human then I don't think the desired outcome is all that relevant.
bsenftner · 27m ago
Let's include who is pushing for the new policy right up to the head of considerations, because these "child protections" are not child protections, they are using children as fear vehicles to make political careers and to generate new revenues for their tech security company backers. Calls to "protect the children" rarely are about children at all, but are almost universally a vehicle to usher in some Orwellian fear-laced perspective forced on the public.
hexis · 37m ago
Why would the desired outcome be a more true test than the actual outcome?
gotoeleven · 38m ago
You're saying the true test of a policy is its stated intentions? This attitude is exactly why we get so many terrible, unworkable policies with terrible unintended consequences (though often the consequences are so obvious that the claims that they are "unintended" are incredible).
_joel · 1h ago
Seems as though, if anything, the government are doubling down on it. I swear Labour are speedrunning "How to become the most hated party". I thought it'd take a bit longer than a year, but here we are.
XorNot · 29m ago
They're not though. These types of policies are very popular. HN users come out in favor of them or some variant and you'd think they should recognize the dangers.
People will happily demand these policies in the abstract, and then some will be unhappy with the implementation but not all.
_joel · 13m ago
Have you seen the recent polls?
dcow · 13m ago
The core argument presented is that children watching porn is a cultural problem and therefore can’t be addressed by a technical solution.
I agree with the preface that the online safety act is a big dumpster fire. Regulators and lawmakers can and often do fail to effectively regulate.
I disagree that calling it a cultural problem and saying “oh well, can’t do anything” is a legitimate conclusion. I mean governments aren’t supposed to attack cultural problems, only protect the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. Nobody wants the government telling you what clothes to wear and what shows to watch.
The rhetorical “example” given is just plain false. It’s not like the government sending someone to your house to age check you when you pick up a knife. It’s like them requiring a bouncer at the door of a knife store.
We ID people for purchase of alcohol. It’s not perfect. Older kids get around it. And it’s definitely a “cultural problem” to some degree. But there isn't harm being caused by requiring an age check to purchase.
So often lately I see people letting perfect be the enemy of good.
If you wanted to fix problems with the implementation of the online safety act you would loosen the burden imposed on user content driven communities by exposing the individuals posting to legal liability for their posts rather than imposing unimplementable moderation requirements on the service operators. You would attack institutional porn not message boards where someone uploads a nsfw photo. Regulators don’t understand the stratification of the internet. You’d require sites that fall under regulation to use digital ID documents. You make it illegal for that data to be stored at all and simply tell sites to update a column in the user db “age verified: true”. You would not use IP address-based or credit card based filtering.
There are many ways this could have been not a regulatory dumpster fire and still moved the needle towards sustainable and effective online ID document presentation. One example of failure doesn’t damn the whole concept.
In this instance, though, the online safety act should definitely be repealed and reworked.
Also no parental controls are not readily and widely available nor are they easy to configure and install, not least because of lack of a digital ID story.
amoe_ · 1h ago
The knife crime analogy is a bit off, as we already have age restrictions for buying knives in the UK.
snozolli · 15m ago
Children shouldn't have unsupervised access to the Internet. Stop off-loading parenting onto politicians who infringe on liberty in the name of a (false) sense of security.
azalemeth · 49m ago
An obligatory link for either anyone living in Britain or with British citizenship:
More people have signed this than the membership of the labour party(!)
VikingMiner · 41m ago
The whole country could sign that petition and it will be ignored. There is no legal/political solution to this. The sooner people accept that the better.
vaylian · 8m ago
Nonsense. Promoting the petition and keeping talking about the law is one of the most effective things that can be done to make life uncomfortable for the politicians who are responsible for this mess. More pressure is needed and politicians will have to face journalists asking unpleasant questions when people continue to complain.
implements · 1h ago
Any device with a Government service (eg NHS) or a Banking app knows who and old the primary user is, so seems the obvious technological solution is some kind of securely anonymous attestation that websites can request from the OS.
And I think this is right. If Apple and Google can add a thing that lets us track Covid exposure they can surely figure out secure age attestation.
As it is, you can use your mobile phone for simple age attestation in the UK anyway, since mobile phone companies block adult content by default until they are unblocked, as a parental control measure.
croes · 1h ago
What went wrong?
For complete safety you need complete surveillance which contradicts complete safety.
arrowsmith · 44m ago
Because it's not actually about safety.
fidotron · 59m ago
Absolutely nothing about it has gone wrong.
They have collected some personal data from law abiding pornography consumers: obvious perverts who should know better anyway. If their information gets released it will be their own fault. Some other stuff got hidden, but that's no problem as the BBC will tell you anything that you need to know anyway.
They can, and will, readily ban VPNs later, since those have no legitimate purpose for individuals, and will only be allowed for licensed operators like banks, hospitals, and defence manufacturers.
If you think this is sarcasm you haven't been paying attention to what the people pushing these laws actually say.
vaylian · 3m ago
> obvious perverts who should know better anyway.
Why are these perverts obvious?
> They can, and will, readily ban VPNs later, since those have no legitimate purpose for individuals, and will only be allowed for licensed operators like banks, hospitals, and defence manufacturers.
This is not true. All kinds of companies and private people use VPNs to safeguard their computer infrastructure.
exasperaited · 42m ago
> They have collected some personal data from law abiding pornography consumers:
Who is "they"?
betaby · 20m ago
UK now cached up with Russia of 2015. One may even say Russia is 10 years ahead!
snickerdoodle12 · 1h ago
Politicians listened to the "smart" guys from Google/Apple/Microsoft/Whatever who were there with their own ulterior motives.
I mostly disagree with it. I don't want prepubescent children watching porn of course, but the vast majority of them aren't doing that with any regularity, nor do they have any desire to. It isn't a problem that demands a robust solution with serious downsides.
I do think an HTTP header saying "no adult content" that can be turned on via both simple browser settings and password-protected parental controls is a good idea. That would reduce accidental or casual exposure to porn and have no meaningful downsides.
This genuinely needs qualification and I suspect, based on discussions I have had with friends who are teachers and teaching assistants, that you would be horrified by how often very young children (seven, eight, nine years old) are viewing material that only a couple of generations ago would not have been seen in any legal publication in the UK.
> It isn't a problem that demands a robust solution with serious downsides.
This is an opinion, not a fact. I think I disagree, but I also disagree that websites asking you to verify you can access a particular link on a mobile device is a particularly serious downside (since that is one of the valid ways of age attestation in the UK -- it requires only that your mobile phone provider knows you are an adult, which they can establish in a number of ways).
This is perhaps a better example than porn. I'd be much more worried about my 14-year old spending all of their (or my) money on gambling than having a wank every once in a while.
That said, I have accidentally landed on porn sites over the years (including in a demo in front of the entire company haha). I'm not part of the hyper-prudish American contingent where any form of nudity does irreparable trauma to a child, but ... there's some pretty wild stuff out there. It's not like when I was young and stay up late to sneakily watch a soft-core porn at midnight.
Censorship is one of the advantages they like: https://freespeechunion.org/protest-footage-blocked-as-onlin...
The uniparty strikes again.
No indeed, but it might be the beginning of a political campaign.
Unfortunately I have zero faith in UK government having a moment of introspection here.
Instead of realizing it's not fit for purpose they'll double down on the broken approach. Fully expecting the "solution" here to be more regulation, more punishment, more cost, more killing small sites, more inconvenience, more technically unfeasible things (vpn ban).
Have written to my MP about it and unsurprisingly zero response. Useless government
The government should require sites with "unsafe" content to make "safe" versions available (eg force safe mode, readonly, no signup). Sites that are wholly inappropriate for children should self-report so they can be made unresolvable by child-safe DNS.
I'm not saying this specific implementation is the one true way, there's alternatives and ways to work around it. My real point is that the government should have forced sites to implement a consistent method of enforcing child safe mode, that can be easily set in a blanket fashion by the parent.
I'm sure whatever approach will be "too technical" for many parents at first, but once a consistent safe-mode method becomes clear, I'm sure UIs and parental controls will evolve to make it easy to enable.
Yet none of those far more problematic things comes with an age check, a fence, government controls or any special kinds of locks. We just educate children, and parents pay attention. Children that are too young to understand are put in special places like kindergarten, and even at a later age are often supervised by responsible adults.
I don't see why the internet should suddenly be all of that in reverse: Things like the online safety act require a whole world full of child-safe sites, and a child-impenetrable fence put around the few ones considered unsafe. This is totally ass-backwards.
A really interesting question would be to ask Aylo -- the world's largest pornographer -- why they are complying with the UK law and working with the regulator (population ~70M), but blocking whole states in response to the French law (population ~70M also) and Texas (population ~30M).
Because there obviously is some nuance and realpolitik here, when Aylo could very easily just block the UK too.
Has anyone done this journalism?
> For years Aylo has publicly called for effective and enforceable age assurance solutions that protect minors online, while ensuring the safety and privacy of all users. The United Kingdom is the first country to present these same priorities demonstrably.
At least according to their release, the UK worked with them on it.
They also have an updated statement on France [2].
[1]: https://www.aylo.com/newsroom/aylo-upgrades-age-assurance-me...
[2]: https://www.aylo.com/newsroom/aylo-suspends-access-to-pornhu...
But the fact remains here that the world's largest porn company is not presenting this as a big civil liberties issue; they have moved on from that.
I think it's important to understand that Ofcom isn't just imposing nonsense policies without any consultation with the very people they are trying to regulate.
They may not be succeeding, and people can disagree with the policy outcome, but there's a huge amount of misinformation suggesting that this is simple thoughtless autocratic censorious wishful thinking, when it is in fact an attempt at a policy of industry self-regulation backed by penalties, which is how the ombudsman system is meant to work.
Also I think a lot of US commentators don't understand that mobile phone providers in the UK block adult content by default and have been moving to that position over the long term because it is the only practical parental control mechanism that exists in a market of devices with different operating systems, menus, and often absence of on-device parental control mechanisms at all.
They have an age verification business.
But they also have a policy position about this and I'm not sure anyone has asked them to talk about those three decisions in the same sentence, as it were.
These parental controls rather suck though; see e.g. [1]. This basically matches my own experience.
I do agree with the general gist of it, but it's not as simple as "these tools already exist, we just need to educate people". There is real work to be done here before this is usable.
And why isn't there a "Content-Rating: sex" or "Content-Rating: gambling" HTTP header? Or something along those lines? Why isn't there one easy "under 12" button on a phone to lock down tons of stuff, from PornHub to gambling sites to what-have-you? All of this is also a failing of the technical community to actually build reasonable and usable standards and tools, too.
[1]: Parental controls? What parental controls? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38314224 - Nov 2023 (archive, since site is down: https://web.archive.org/web/20231119003608/https://gabrielsi...)
The mobile app world solved this years ago, and successfully generates age ratings for different countries based on developer interviews. (It's part of the app submission process).
There are problems with the mobile app world, but that isn't one of them.
Many UK MPs don't understand this. I've heard of MPs making (moronic) suggestions such as selling kitchen knives without the point on it. I've literally seen this advertised as a solution on the news.
For whatever reason they don't seem to understand that literally anyone can make a shiv.
For anyone doubting the veracity of that.
As someone who is clumsy and easily distracted, I have such a kitchen knife. They are commonly available. It works absolutely fine and it has three times minimised an injury that would have been nasty because I am an easily-distracted tired old idiot.
The point of a knife is only needed in a handful of kitchen applications. Most knives do not need to be able to stab at all. Only cut.
And combined with rules on the sales of longer blades that do have a point, this idea could genuinely be part of reducing knife crime (especially among the very youngest).
Because it does reduce access to knives that would be useful for stabbing, and it reduces the severity of injuries caused by the youngest in knife crime incidents. Without meaningfully affecting the kitchen usefulness of most small blades at all.
If I go to a supermarket and buy a long enough knife with a point on it, in theory I am asked to prove my age (in practice they laugh at the idea that I might not be young enough). The same is true for many (not all) products on Amazon, in fact.
The knife without a point on it did not trigger age verification. Nor does a boxcutter type thing, in practice; only retractible blades that don't snap off are on the list, AFAIK. (And only flick-knife-type mechanisms are banned).
I anticipate being downvoted for simply writing about this, but harm reduction through knife sales controls is not something that just stupid MPs think: it is supported by expert opinion.
Knife crime in the UK is a problem. It is still not a problem as severe per-capita as it is elsewhere, but we are trying measures to dissuade it.
Behaviour modification is not always stupid or evil; cultures do it all the time.
That is all.
I think the Online Safety Act is just setting a precedent that will be used further down the line to ban personal VPN usage.
"Children are using encrypted VPN tunnels to see porn online! Criminals also use those same VPN networks!"
Let me guess... There will be a law requiring ISPs to block VPN traffic if the VPN server's hostname isn't registered to a business and approved by the government.
UK: "Do you have a license for that VPN?!"
Anyway, download i2p, or Hyphanet/freenet
Your prior 3 ideas all end up at "potential government surveillance of the people".
There is no way to implement verification like this without surveiling everyone, even if you don't plan to use the data - the possibility will always be there.
The true test of policy should be the desired outcome behind that policy.
People will happily demand these policies in the abstract, and then some will be unhappy with the implementation but not all.
I agree with the preface that the online safety act is a big dumpster fire. Regulators and lawmakers can and often do fail to effectively regulate.
I disagree that calling it a cultural problem and saying “oh well, can’t do anything” is a legitimate conclusion. I mean governments aren’t supposed to attack cultural problems, only protect the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. Nobody wants the government telling you what clothes to wear and what shows to watch.
The rhetorical “example” given is just plain false. It’s not like the government sending someone to your house to age check you when you pick up a knife. It’s like them requiring a bouncer at the door of a knife store.
We ID people for purchase of alcohol. It’s not perfect. Older kids get around it. And it’s definitely a “cultural problem” to some degree. But there isn't harm being caused by requiring an age check to purchase.
So often lately I see people letting perfect be the enemy of good.
If you wanted to fix problems with the implementation of the online safety act you would loosen the burden imposed on user content driven communities by exposing the individuals posting to legal liability for their posts rather than imposing unimplementable moderation requirements on the service operators. You would attack institutional porn not message boards where someone uploads a nsfw photo. Regulators don’t understand the stratification of the internet. You’d require sites that fall under regulation to use digital ID documents. You make it illegal for that data to be stored at all and simply tell sites to update a column in the user db “age verified: true”. You would not use IP address-based or credit card based filtering.
There are many ways this could have been not a regulatory dumpster fire and still moved the needle towards sustainable and effective online ID document presentation. One example of failure doesn’t damn the whole concept.
In this instance, though, the online safety act should definitely be repealed and reworked.
Also no parental controls are not readily and widely available nor are they easy to configure and install, not least because of lack of a digital ID story.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903
More people have signed this than the membership of the labour party(!)
https://www.aylo.com/assets/files/age_verification_fact_shee...
And I think this is right. If Apple and Google can add a thing that lets us track Covid exposure they can surely figure out secure age attestation.
As it is, you can use your mobile phone for simple age attestation in the UK anyway, since mobile phone companies block adult content by default until they are unblocked, as a parental control measure.
For complete safety you need complete surveillance which contradicts complete safety.
They have collected some personal data from law abiding pornography consumers: obvious perverts who should know better anyway. If their information gets released it will be their own fault. Some other stuff got hidden, but that's no problem as the BBC will tell you anything that you need to know anyway.
They can, and will, readily ban VPNs later, since those have no legitimate purpose for individuals, and will only be allowed for licensed operators like banks, hospitals, and defence manufacturers.
If you think this is sarcasm you haven't been paying attention to what the people pushing these laws actually say.
Why are these perverts obvious?
> They can, and will, readily ban VPNs later, since those have no legitimate purpose for individuals, and will only be allowed for licensed operators like banks, hospitals, and defence manufacturers.
This is not true. All kinds of companies and private people use VPNs to safeguard their computer infrastructure.
Who is "they"?