UK Drops Plans For Online Pornography Age Verification System (theguardian.com) 99
Plans to introduce a nationwide age verification system for online pornography have been abandoned by the government after years of technical troubles and concerns from privacy campaigners. From a report: The climbdown follows countless difficulties with implementing the policy, which would have required all pornography websites to ensure users were over 18. Methods would have included checking credit cards or allowing people to buy a "porn pass" age verification document from a newsagent. Websites that refused to comply with the policy -- one of the first of its kind in the world -- faced being blocked by internet service providers or having their access to payment services restricted. The culture secretary, Nicky Morgan, told parliament the policy would be abandoned. Instead, the government would instead focus on measures to protect children in the much broader online harms white paper. This is expected to introduce a new internet regulator, which will impose a duty of care on all websites and social media outlets -- not just pornography sites.
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is wrong with online porn?
Re: (Score:2)
Like watching any other form of visual media, watching online porn causes a lot of traffic. Contributing to the congestion of bad infrastructures for both tethered networks and even worse, wireless networks, where all the traffic that is not your is basically noise.
As an hyperbole analogy imagine a regular physical road. One large truck after the next large truck and so on is filled with with porn to the
Re: (Score:2)
But this has also been the sentiment of my communications technology teacher back when I had my IT apprenticeship back in the late 90s. He firmly believed that we'll need QoS in the future and make people pay based on the traffic they cause. And here his opinion was that useless traffic like chatting and picture porn should have the lowest priority and cost the most. Although I am not sure if he is still of that opinion today, if that sentiment was translated to today, he'd be for putting all social media (probably including youtube) and porn on the slowest-lane.
Isn't this the opposite of net neutrality?
Re: (Score:2)
However maybe a bit more context. These statement was made when we went through the IPv4 packet structure, which has had an entire byte in its header dedicated to Type of Service and network congestion, which were intended be used for QoS.
So what stopped them? Apparently the technical capabilities at that time did not allow a practical implication of QoS.
Re: (Score:1)
Net neutrality is a kludge for monopolistic practices. The ability to offer, say, a guaranteed 3Mb/s connection for video at a premium cost while slightly slowing down low urgency tasks would not be inherently terrible and would arguably have advantages over a truly neutral network.
The problem is, there's no mechanism to ensure fairness. If all internet service was provided by one of hundred of ISPs, and the cost to switch was small (essentially an idealised fre
Re: (Score:2)
Playing devil's advocate here. So don't argue against a strawman as you'll be preaching to the choir:
Like watching any other form of visual media, watching online porn causes a lot of traffic. Contributing to the congestion of bad infrastructures for both tethered networks and even worse, wireless networks, where all the traffic that is not your is basically noise.
As an hyperbole analogy imagine a regular physical road. One large truck after the next large truck and so on is filled with with porn to the brim, leaving little room for the ambulance to squeeze through, which has a time critical task to fulfill.
Of course reality is a bit more complex than this.
But this has also been the sentiment of my communications technology teacher back when I had my IT apprenticeship back in the late 90s. He firmly believed that we'll need QoS in the future and make people pay based on the traffic they cause. And here his opinion was that useless traffic like chatting and picture porn should have the lowest priority and cost the most. Although I am not sure if he is still of that opinion today, if that sentiment was translated to today, he'd be for putting all social media (probably including youtube) and porn on the slowest-lane.
Yeah the only problem is that there is plenty of bandwidth. The highways are like 32 lanes wide now, in both directions.
Not really applicable.
Re: (Score:2)
But they would not be 32 lanes wide if all the "senders" and "receivers" of porn had, rather than paying to send it over the Internet, spent that money to finance the expansion of the "dirty magazine" shelf at the corner candy shop. In that case the Internet highways would still only be goat-paths and the "dirty magazine shelf" would consume the entire supermarket.
Re: (Score:2)
But they would not be 32 lanes wide if all the "senders" and "receivers" of porn had, rather than paying to send it over the Internet, spent that money to finance the expansion of the "dirty magazine" shelf at the corner candy shop. In that case the Internet highways would still only be goat-paths and the "dirty magazine shelf" would consume the entire supermarket.
That really doesn't hold up either though.
What about all of the streaming that isn't porn? Netflix, Hulu, Sling, Etc. etc.
The file sharing, the cloud, hosted information/sites/images/repositories
Wait, i'm an idiot. You are trying to say that all information/media should be transferred mouth to mouth or by hand delivered parcel! Sneaker Net!
I get it now. Yeah!, i'm so dumb, when you put it that way you're right.
No need for internet at all really. Except maybe a handful of scientist exchanging critical rese
Re: (Score:1)
"Of course reality is a bit more complex than this.
But this has also been the sentiment of my communications technology teacher back when I had my IT apprenticeship back in the late 90s. He firmly believed that we'll need QoS in the future and make people pay based on the traffic they cause. And here his opinion was that useless traffic like chatting and picture porn should have the lowest priority and cost the most. Although I am not sure if he is still of that opinion today, if that sentiment was translat
Re: (Score:2)
"I trust him to be smart enough to assemble a fast food burger,"
ARGH! I meant "I ##would NOT## trust him....."
I hope some day Slashdot can get an editing function for the boards. Even if it has a timeout.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you actually have a point there. But bying porn on blurays isn't the answer either.
Re: (Score:2)
As an hyperbole analogy imagine a regular physical road. One large truck after the next large truck and so on is filled with with porn to the brim, leaving little room for the ambulance to squeeze through, which has a time critical task to fulfill.
The porn trucks and highways are so huge now the the tiny little ambulance can slip underneath them.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Contributing to the congestion
Okay, a valid thing to worry about, but from the wrong angle.
Sandvine posts their findings about what "causes a lot of traffic". And it's streaming. People downloading the same files over and over. Resolutions they're not looking at, can't render for shit, or can't distinguish. During peak hours.
A rant I'll cut short, enough to say that if you're worried about All Them Trucks you'll want to talk to netflix and youtube.
https://arstechnica.com/inform... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Just a few things:
1. It's mostly degrading to women but often degrading to both sexes
2. There's a growing body of research [slashdot.org] that suggests porn use might be a sign of addiction, and as a result, it can not only begin to dominate a life, but can demand ever-increasing levels of exposure and ever-increasing degrees of experience to continue to stimulate.
3. It distorts sex into nothing more than lust by objectifying people and destroys real relationships, real intimacy, real sexuality.
4. Pornography is linked to
Re:If only (Score:4, Funny)
7. It makes Jesus sad.
Re:If only (Score:5, Informative)
You must have binge watched a lot of porn...
Let's be clear, I am against any form of exploitation but there's plenty of porn made by and with eager volunteers.
Things like 40,000 fatalities per year in the USofA alone due to guns and the spate of knife attacks in the UK are much bigger worries.
Re: (Score:2)
2/3rds of those gun fatalities are suicides. Probably from people depressed after watching porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you believe it's bad for your kids, well the onus is on you to keep them from watching.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as no participant were forced to take part and it is voluntarily watched I see absolutely no problem with porn.
As long as the heroin addict (alcoholic, name your addiction) wasn't forced to participate in using the drug, I'm fine with keeping it legal.
Re:If only (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not a fact, that is an opinion.
Same goes for coffee.
If porn can destroy a relationship then there has been not much of a relationship in the first place.
[sarcasm]Watching it also kills little fluffy animals.[/sarcasm]
If you want to find human trafficking and abuse, you should rather search on the Arab construction sites.
Do you have any proof of this being typical?
Yeah, people who already have depression, anxiety and erectile dysfunction use porn to make their lives a little less miserable. And now you want to take it all away. You bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If only (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, yeah, when two women, a man, a donkey, three dwaves and a shaved asian boy come together as one body and soul on camera for the purpose of making bus fare back to Ohio, that's just beautiful and natural.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, the vast majority of pornography is not "sensual lovemaking." Your post is kind of like saying going to Paco's Human Feces Restaurant is fine because they also serve a tuna sandwich.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you putting "sensual lovemaking" in quotation marks as if it was something I said? Are you quoting yourself at me? That's... Unusual.
I highly doubt that you have seen enough porn to be an expert on what the vast majority of it is about. Your post is kind of like saying "the vast majority of resteraunts are Paco's Human Faeces Resteraunt, so all forms of food are disgusting."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, yeah, when two women, a man, a donkey, three dwaves and a shaved asian boy come together as one body and soul on camera for the purpose of making bus fare back to Ohio, that's just beautiful and natural.
The only thing I can't figure out from your comment is which of those people you're jealous of, or if it's just the donkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Just sayin', that donkey had a good damn time.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you name the title? Your description has made me curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. No, it isn't. The women involved in it are perfectly liberated (for the most part), paid very well and consider it a fair trade. The fact that you consider it 'degrading' is purely your opinion, based on not being in the industry, or consumer base. That's fine to have that opinion, but it's not fine to force it on people that don't share it. Consensual porn is ethical.
2. Anything is addictive if you have an addictive personality. The world is pushing physical touch into taboo again, so of course peo
Re: (Score:2)
"2. Anything is addictive if you have an addictive personality. The world is pushing physical touch into taboo again,"
Back in the late 19th century, kids in Germany and Austria typically grew up in households that were very strict, conservative, and brutal. A kid in Austria grew up in such a household, and he held such a grudge by the treatment he received from his parents, that he had his own birthplace used as target practice by the military.
That kid was Adolf Hitler.
If we backslide into t
Re: (Score:2)
While each of those items may have a grain of truth, so what?
People should be able to make their own decisions. Especially bad ones. Otherwise we should ban alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, guns, gambling, recreational drugs, and anything else that can cause harm to someone and MAY have negative consequences. And even if we did that, the American alcohol prohibition and war on drugs taught us that would just cause a black market for whatever you try to ban.
Re: (Score:2)
4. Pornography is linked to human trafficking and other human abuses.
I think you're confusing pornography with prostitution. Most porn stars are adults and are completely willing.
If prostitution causes trafficking it's mostly because it's illegal and therefore being organized by criminal gangs.
(nb. I exclude the sickos who create child porn and child prostitutes, that's another story)
Re: (Score:2)
OK. And your point is ..... ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But remember that rape cases go down where pornography is easily available.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What is so bad about porn being available online? If you feel you are forced to watch it, you might have an addiction situation and need professional help.
Otherwise, don't watch it.
I agree, if you don't want to watch/listen, don't. Shame political speech is not regulated like this...(wink, wink)
Re:If only (Score:4, Interesting)
Legality != Morality.
The government is NOT in the business of morality only legality.
i.e. Did you learn NOTHING from prohibition in the US? Or the laws of Slavery in your own country?
Laws change over time as people's beliefs and understanding of morality changes. (The argument for Absolute vs Relative morality is as old as Philosophy itself.)
Also, define porn?
That's not a rhetorical question that's a practical one. Is a photograph of nudists pornography? If so, why?
The point is where exactly do you draw the line? And how did YOU decide where the line is?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Great example.
Quick, ban everything! /s
Re:If only (Score:4)
Why would you want them to do that? Do you trust the government to just stop at porn? Then again who's definition of porn do you use? There are certain groups out there that view any exposed flesh as pornographic. Do you really want these people dictating what you can view online?
Re: (Score:2)
War on Titties (Score:2)
The climbdown follows countless difficulties with implementing the policy, which would have required all pornography websites to ensure users were over 18.
Yet, I'm sure this unworkable thing that NO ONE wants will be proposed and scheduled again in the near future.
Duty of Care? (Score:1)
Is this some sort of buzzphrase in Great Britain? I get the concept, but I see/hear it popping up in all sorts of contexts over the last 4-5 years in British media.
Putting a website in the same child care category as a doctor or a nanny seems absurd, and even less likely to work than an age pass.
Re: (Score:2)
A duty of care is a common idea in European legal systems. A lot of it stems from human rights.
It just means that an organization has a legal duty to make an effort to protect people. That can range from having age checks to providing safety equipment to doing due diligence.
An example would be gambling companies that have a duty of care towards their customers, meaning they must check that they are not spending too much on gambling and offer them help if they become addicted.
It's a socialist idea where comp
Re:Duty of Care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so sure it's Socialist. It's more like an application of ethics, and applies in whichever political system you care to name. :)
At the end of the day, applied in companies, it's known to have a marked difference on long term productivity and morale of workers (so works nicely as a Nash equilibrium). In the wider scope, it's known to have positive impact on the psychological health of a population (again, reducing costs, as they don't need as much healthcare, which in Europe is socialised, which is a good thing in my books, as it's critical infrastructure for making sure a populace is as ready for working and achieving as they can be).
From a more business view, it's a long term strategy, rather than a short term. Looking after customers and their environment means they're likely to be customers for a lot longer. After having the toes dipped in the water of short termism, a lot of the more long term strategies are reappearing, which is very good.
But think we're dead in agreement that it's a good thing.
Re: (Score:1)
As mentioned, I get the idea, it far predates socialism/totalitarianism, it's basic ethics that predates human history.
My question was more as a legal concept/buzzphrase - "protecting people" is far too vague to hold up in a court of law, at least in the USA. Given that this is Europe, I presume that that was no accident, it is intentionally vague so that it can be selectively enforced. which is how the modern equivalent of "royal privilege" is implemented in socialist states.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not vague. It means they are responsible for that person and if they allow something bad to happen that they could have prevented they are responsible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, trolled again by there mere definition of words. We really need to stop snowfakes getting mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Duty of Care means exactly what it says. English is NOT that difficult a language.
If two adults fuck and have a rugrat, they have a Duty of Care to look after the rugrat until it is capable of looking after itself. If they do not want a rugrat then they have a Duty of Care to wear a condom or a balloon or otherwise keep the sperm from meeting egg (ass fucking works).
If you pay someone to look after you or to do something, then they have a Duty of Care to do the thing which they were paid to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the same.
As with many of those symbolic subjects, whenever they are fighting porn they are putting an infrastructure in place which may take some effort, but once the infrastructure exists they can switch it to work on anything else in an instant whenever the decision is made..
Re: (Score:2)
There is no sure fire way of protecting anyone or anything. Given the incredibly small incidence of things like this, I'd say the rules and regulations are working at a fair balance. Too much one way and you end up with real problems (I remember a decade or so ago that the then Government were introducing legislation that you had to be registered, background checked and certified for being in a position of care for a child, even if it was looking after your friends' kids for an evening, otherwise it was a
Re: (Score:2)
The UK government once [massively fucked up]. Again in 2015 the UK [government massively fucked up]
Until the UK government can demonstrate some sort of real-world effectiveness in protecting kids...
I'm going to guess you're American. Most Americans think the UK is very very small. It isn't except by land area. It's about 1/5 of the size of the US in terms of population, which means about the size of California and Texas combined.
Basically your post amounts to "I found a couple of times where Texas or Califo
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the rich and powerful.
I have been listening to the podcast: "Unheard: The Fred & Rose West Tapes". One of their children was taken to hospital with an STD and there appears to have been no action on this.
Like it was ever a go-er! (Score:3, Insightful)
My government couldn't block a drain, let alone websites! Conservatives talk utter crap and make promises to appeal to the middle-Englander, NIMBY crowd they need to ensure they stay in power. "You're kids are being corrupted by this nasty internet thing! Paedos and terrorists lurking around every corner, they're going to kill and rape your kids! We'll put a stop to it and block the bad stuff on this internet thingy if you vote for us!".
Fast forward 2 years and "Sorry, we didn't have a clue what we were talking about so we spoke to some people who know about this computer stuff and after spunking £5m in consultation fees on finding out more, they told us it was impossible to do, so sorry and all but it's all off!".
It could work but politicians are clueless (Score:1)
You need an ID to get into strip club for obvious reasons but it need not show your identity -- the bouncer only needs your FACE matching to the above 18 indicator on the ID.
You can digitally sign documents for a long long time now.
You just need a 2D barcode that is government signed to verify it is a legit document. No name or personal information is required other than the minimum to verify it is YOUR document and not a borrowed or stolen one. A PIN could do for probably everything involving age verifica
Re: (Score:2)
"You need an ID to get into strip club for obvious reasons"
No you do not. Nor do you need ID to get a drink. In fact, you do not really need ID for anything at all, other than presenting to the fascists when they demand your papers. Just tell them to fuck off and they will go away. If they do not go away, just wait until they attack you and then immediately kill them in self-defense. Eventually all the fascists will be dead and the issue will be resolved.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to take your meds.
Re: It could work but politicians are clueless (Score:2)
You do not need an ID to have a drink here in the UK. The merchant needs to see your ID to sell you a drink.
It's the businesses, not the purchasers who are on the hook for selling alcohol (or any other restricted substance) to minors.
Thos does mean that if you decide to go full paranoid nutbar like the GP then the merchant has every right to refuse service and to tell you to sod off out of their establishment.
As for this Pornblock thing, I'
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA, in my state, merchants can get into trouble (liquor license) if they are caught so they only card people who look too young; only to verify their age. So it's not much different; an ID keeps the merchant happy. Unfortunately, underage people get credit cards so that can't be an alternative method.
I'm sure plenty of states here have laws to punish buyers for purchase, possession, and even intent to defraud (lie about age, fake ID, etc.) which can be dug up against the disliked (prior criminal rec
Seems like a fit. (Score:2)
"Think of the children" (Score:2)
That's the song coming out of the Pied Piper's flute who leads otherwise reasonable adults into the dystonian hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's still "think of the children" and we have been seeing a lot more "think of the children" lately.
Thanks to all of the high profile violence that has been in the news lately, such as the El Paso shootings, the proto-fascists are giddy and excited,
and see this time as their chance to railroad in their shitty little laws.
"Think of the children" is one of their most used tools in their toolboxes.
We need this BADLY (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, we absolutely need a pornography age verification system. I cannot stand it when the video says "teen," you click on it and it's some 35-year-old woman with pigtails.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't make it work for porn, so... (Score:2)
... it needs to be extended to other websites, until we can find a big enough money pot to pay for anything and everything necessary to make it work.
Even if it won't.
Waste in Government Plan (Score:2)
Next time, UK, just post an Ask Slashdot inquiring whether a technology plan is even remotely possible. If 95% of the comments mock it, maybe move on.
And let's be clear - it was mostly just an editor who called the iPod lame, and respecting the editors here would go against social norms.
Fap, Fap (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
Dilbert [dilbert.com].
I like that in 2019 (Score:2)
A funny thing about London-town (Score:2)
They youth street gangs there are much better armed than the law aiding citizens and even the police. They are packing huge 'zombie' knives, machetes, and yes, guns. And this kind of violence is wide spread throughout the entire UK.
And yet the UK powers to be are scared that little Johnny might see a nipple on the computer screen.
I think the powers of the UK have their priorities a little mixed up.
Re: (Score:1)
They youth street gangs there are much better armed than the law aiding citizens and even the police. They are packing huge 'zombie' knives, machetes, and yes, guns. And this kind of violence is wide spread throughout the entire UK.
Sounds like you've been reading the Daily Mail or similar. Most of the time, most of the UK is a very peaceful place. I travel around *a lot* including many large cities with 'reputations' (I have free rail travel) and in my 50+ years, I have *never* seen anyone with any weapon a
Re: (Score:2)
UK citizen, since birth.
Have literally never seen a knife or gun on the streets, or met anyone who's experienced a gun crime in the capital. I don't even know anyone who owns a gun in any way, shape or form (even the few legal paths open to landowners, hunters, licensed range shooters, etc.)
Stop reading the tabloid papers, it's a nonsense. All rates are vastly lower than you can imagine elsewhere, and thus stories are cherry picked for every little incident that happens.
Seriously: Watch a British "police