I’m with @OpenRightsGroup this is a disaster waiting to happen.
MetaCert has classified the world’s biggest database of XXX - I can tell you that 99% of sites won’t implement age verification. This don’t help with child safety imo but we’ll see. https://t.co/gxGHoqO4OI
RT @1Br0wn: UK’s age verification for porn to be switched on soon; “The problem is you’re giving all your data to the pornographic equivalent of Mark Zuckerberg: ‘This is what I like, this is who I am, and these are all of the sites I’ve visited’.” -@jimkillockhttps://t.co/00EsIqEkNZ
The porn ban is completely useless, Just because all UK ISP’s Blocked porn sites doesn’t mean someone in the UK who is a minor can’t access porn. They could just get a VPN, change their IP Address and then they could access the porn sites. If a teen from Australia could get past an Australian $70 Million+ Porn ban, the minors of the UK can get past this block easily
The government mandating the creation of databases explicitly linking people with their internet traffic, with the express purpose of monitoring it is just astonishingly dangerous. It’s not even ambiguous.
The system will be run by private entities dealing with other businesses and I 100% guarantee that this will be breached. Russia, China, and other countries and adversaries will be all over hacking this and they’d be stupid not to.
Anybody who supports this is either 100% misinformed, so authoritarian they’ve completely lost touch with reality, or just stupid beyond words.
Presumably this will "block" (VPN, etc aside) the "big name" porn websites, but the hundreds of random smaller sites won't be registered?
Also, what about sites that have plenty of porn content, but are not principally porn websites? Reddit is a prime example - hundreds of NSFW subs but I best the vast majority of "Redditors" (is that the right term?) don't use it principally for porn. Same goes for the likes of 4Chan, and loads of video aggregate sites.
duckduck is my default, but it's not great for porn. The results are often from youtube.
Bing videos show thumbnails, including the big streaming sites, and if you hover over them you get a quick preview.
Doubt it, if our government is stupid enough to think that most people nowadays don't know how to get past internet blocks, they're not smart enough to know that most porn on the internet is reuploaded on hundreds of sites.
It'll just be like their attempts at blocking free streaming sites, they block the big ones like Putlocker (only like 1 or 2 domains) but ignore basically everything else, pretty sure my nan could get around it within an hour and she can't even set her alarm on her phone.
How exactly are the British government going to enforce this nonsense? There is porn everywhere on the internet and you literally can't police the web. The tech to counteract this bullshit will steam far ahead of whatever the government can create to block it. This will just end up as another costly Tory mistake.
> you literally can't police the web
No prizes for what they want to do. A common theory for how the internet will develop is fragmentation as different nations seek to control what happens on their patch.
Until it moves onto the Block chain where it will be immutable and unchanging. That will grow more popular with citizens while the current Internet gets increasingly regulated by governments, and we'll have a three tier Internet:
Regulated for official business
Back chain unregulated for unofficial business, open source, banking(?)
Dark web for dirty business.
I just cant see how the government can think that this is maintainable in terms of budget, never mind on a tech level. Not even the Chinese government has managed and they are far better at this kind of oppressive behavior. May and her Tory henchmen are amateurs by Chinese standards.
Yes I completely agree. For any government it is a wet dream to control the internet. I totally see your point, I just don't believe the government has the brass or the brains to pull it off. No pun intended.
Aside from the sickening thought of there being a database with everyone's passports and porn habits on it, the appalling invasion of privacy this represents, and the transparent effort on the government's part to incrementally tighten their control over the internet and its users, this is only going to cause damage to the people it ostensibly aims to protect. Trying to say no one wants to view porn until they turn 18 is absurd. Making it impossible for anyone younger than that to do anything about their sexual urges is going to be psychologically damaging - and making anyone over 18 have to buy an actual porn pass from a newsagent's is just vile.
Um....except it is.
I mean unique tracking cookies mean that large corporations already have your porn viewing habits on a database the same way they have your shopping habits and streaming habits but now one or two will also have a confirmed identity to go with the data. Even if it’s later randomised your demographically indie will be monetised. That’s why mindgeek are so so into this.
>porn until they turn 18 is absurd. Making it impossible for anyone younger than that to do anything about their sexual urges is going to be psychologically damaging
What do you think people did before the internet? People don't need pork to masturbate.
We got porn from allotment sheds, lockup garages, in hedges behind lay-bys. In the 80s you could not go for a walk anywhere in the countryside without stumbling on a discarded Grot Mag.
Also if you had Sky TV in the 80s, every single TV or electronics shop in the UK sold "pirate" decoders for watching FilmNet, RTLV, RHD etc..
But how will MPs be exempt? Surely they'd have to identify themselves to these companies that they are MPs before they went about what they needed to, and there's no guarantees that these companies will turn off this tracking in this special case anyway.
They are not exempt from the dragnet surveillance of the snoopers charter. Their traffic would have to be constantly marked to cause it to not be logged. What they have is an additional layer of protection so if their records need to be pulled then the PM needs to sign off. That includes if the PM records need to be pulled too. Fox-hen house?
Anyway, same thing here. They'll get the same additional protection if someone wants to legitimately pull their porn records, but the data is still recorded and can be hacked and leaked.
the basic services are free, you can pay for better/faster services
I've been using the free zenmate for a few years but turn it off for streaming. I'm considering buying a hardware nord vpn and subscribing for £50 a year, but I'm not 100% sure on the tech so having doubts about it.
That looks vastly more complicated, has less choice of endpoint locations (or at least less simple choice) and knwoing Googles prices is probably not much cheaper for full VPN data. On the plus side Googles servers are less likely to be blocked.
> I think the whole "privacy fear" concept is people basically assuming they are important enough for anyone to use their uninteresting data for something that is not targeted ads.
If they have a database with all citizens they can check those that are important. Unwelcome publishers, political opponents etc.
> nobody really cares what porn you watch, Samuel, as long as it's the legal kind of porn.
Let's, for instance, say that random politician from opposition is a masochist. Two months before election there is a leak and suddenly most of the people stop taking him seriously.
> Also, this is a step in the right direction, to make it harder for teens to watch porn they shouldn't watch. And I'm not referring to the regular porn anyone can see anywhere.
They are not going to distinguish that. Also who would decide what is correct?
And finally, it's my private business.