UK PM Gives Tech Firms Ultimatum To Block Explicit Images on Children's Phones (theguardian.com) 120
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has given Apple, Google, and other tech firms until September to introduce device-level protections that prevent children from taking, sharing, or viewing explicit images. "If businesses do not comply within three months, legislation will be brought forward requiring the protection to be added to all phones and tablets sold in the UK," reports The Guardian. "Tech firms that fail to do so could face fines, and their senior managers could be made criminally liable." From the report: "Today, I am calling on tech companies operating in this country to introduce vice controls that prevent children from sending and receiving sexually explicit images. Because this is not an impossible challenge," he said. "If they choose not, then we will act and we will change the law." [...] Under the changes, sexual predators will be prevented from being able to exploit and abuse victims through their devices, and children stopped from being able to access pornography, the Home Office said. Adults will still be able to take, share or view nude content once they have verified their age.
In the Commons, Melanie Ward, the Labour MP for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, said: "It's time to stop asking social media companies to make their products safe, and instead time to start requiring them to do so through regulation." Clive Efford, the Labour MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, said the "sociopaths" running social media platforms had no concern for the welfare of children. "The only message that they're going to listen to is if there's legislation put before this house that is going to act and send a clear message to them." The proposal is designed to sit alongside the Online Safety Act, which requires companies to have processes for removing material that is illegal or harmful to children.
In the Commons, Melanie Ward, the Labour MP for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, said: "It's time to stop asking social media companies to make their products safe, and instead time to start requiring them to do so through regulation." Clive Efford, the Labour MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, said the "sociopaths" running social media platforms had no concern for the welfare of children. "The only message that they're going to listen to is if there's legislation put before this house that is going to act and send a clear message to them." The proposal is designed to sit alongside the Online Safety Act, which requires companies to have processes for removing material that is illegal or harmful to children.
How? (Score:5, Insightful)
How are they supposed to do this? Simply wave their magic wands (now that sounds like a euphemism) and the problem is solved?
So what happens if the companies involved say "can't be done, time to stop selling in the UK"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah not at all! Oversurveillance and Authoritarian tendencies are not Orwellian. The rewriting of history. denial of obvious facts and gaslighting of the masses is en route to Orwellian, and that's really kicking off across the pond.
There's some stupid, unenforceable legislation in place in the UK. This has primarily been pushed behind the scenes by American interest groups and money as it's easier than trying to do the whole US at once. We're basically a guinea pig for American Christofascist interests at
Re: (Score:1)
It's not impossible, and it is certainly possible to reduce proliferation, but it will hit revenues and that's the impossible concept for the capitalist cult.
What's in it for you to defend positions? Please don't waste your breath on free speech, UK had that long before Social Media, long before the punk US.
Free press in UK is 330 years old. US wasn't even a country then.
Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone will also file a lawsuit saying their child was excessively injured because when the kid tried to take a picture of a medical issue they were having, the phone blocked it. That brings up another question. Why isn't gore being blocked? Will that be the next target after sex stuff?
prevent children from sending and receiving sexually explicit images. Because this is not an impossible challenge
It is an impossible challenge because what's sexually explicit is entirely context dependent. Some people get turned on by feet or legs. Do you need to register that fetish so your device will block them? No more looking at medical diagrams. Etc...
Of course this all ignores that software to block that kind of stuff already exists. Any parent who wants to block that stuff on their kids devices can already do that. Yes it's not perfect and you can assume Apple/Google/Microsoft implementation will have the same detection rates as the current software.
Then we have 3 months to roll out complex software that'll interact with nearly every incoming/outgoing communication and has to profile the active users. Well, all that probably already exists either as ad based tech or since the companies have tried to do this before but backed down. I think they could meet the deadline if the care to. They already scan their cloud/gaming/social platforms for similar content.
Re:How? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course this all ignores that software to block that kind of stuff already exists. Any parent who wants to block that stuff on their kids devices can already do that.
Honestly I don't think that's actually the case. Do you have examples of software you can install on a phone that blocks people from receiving explicit images? I know examples of software that can prevent people using said software from looking at images, but none that universally filter all incoming content from a variety of sources, e.g. a received WhatsApp image.
To be clear I don't think you can really do this at an OS level either.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I don't think that's actually the case. Do you have examples of software you can install on a phone that blocks people from receiving explicit images? I know examples of software that can prevent people using said software from looking at images, but none that universally filter all incoming content from a variety of sources, e.g. a received WhatsApp image.
To be clear I don't think you can really do this at an OS level either.
What you can do is provide trained on-device models that apps like WhatsApp can use to recognize whether they need to flag content, and flags to indicate whether the user is a minor whose content should be checked by that model.
But yeah, global enforcement of viewing naked pictures is impossible, and global enforcement of taking naked pictures is also impossible unless you don't provide direct access to the camera (which would break a whole lot of apps in fundamental ways).
Re: (Score:2)
So you're back to requiring individual apps to enable support, which is kind of my point. There's no easy universal way to stop kiddies doing things you don't want them to do.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're back to requiring individual apps to enable support, which is kind of my point. There's no easy universal way to stop kiddies doing things you don't want them to do.
Correct. There's absolutely no plausible way to do it at an OS level except *maybe* for the camera, and even that can likely be thwarted by recording a video that starts on something innocuous and ends on nudity, because by the time the monitoring algorithm notices the nudity, many frames would already have been sent to the recording app.
But what the device manufacturer can do is require that all apps submitted for app review must comply with those standards and use those tools to check for disallowed cont
Service providers can't even enforce this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OS level except *maybe* for the camera
That would break all camera apps that rely on RAW processing, which very much is a thing on phones as well.
Re: (Score:2)
OS level except *maybe* for the camera
That would break all camera apps that rely on RAW processing, which very much is a thing on phones as well.
RAW, video, anything that grabs stills in real time...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, software like that already exists. It's not perfect, but it will likely be enough to meet the legal requirements.
Simply make messaging apps block all images that aren't the built-in memes and emoji if the user is under 18. Have a DNS blocklist of porn sites. You don't even have to make one, you can just buy one from a company that has been providing them to schools and parents for decades. Ban VPN apps for users under 18 too.
Kids will quickly find ways around it, but that's not the point.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that, but links please. Show me which software works on an OS level to block content across apps. As far as I am aware not only does such software not exist, it would explicitly not work given something like Android's app isolation setup.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, DNS block lists and block any apps that don't have a "child mode".
Re: (Score:2)
DNS blocklists are not content based, and blocking apps is not a unified solution, and also one that is trivially and universally bypassed (see TikTok / Facebook bans). You're back to individual apps which does not meet the intent of this law.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, it doesn't have to be perfect. Something must be done, this is something.
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is an impossible challenge because what's sexually explicit is entirely context dependent.
that's not even the argument. millions upon millions of kids have seen such content and while that might have a wide range of effects from spurning curiosity to distress, most of them have become normal adults with normal sex lives. that's just part of life, and the straighforward thing to prevent negative outcomes is plain and simply sexual education. the "problem" here seems to be images taken and shared by the kids themselves which can then become public (with obvious bad consequences) or, even worse, used to coax them into worse or continued forms of abuse. which would ideally be addressed by education too, namely how to safely use internet in general.
but ofc all that is not the point at all; control is.
the fun part here is really starmer pompously announcing a 3 months deadline, dead serious. will he be still around when that deadline hits? but ofc another epstein stooge will take it from there. what a bunch of utterly disgusting crooks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, the tech exists. It will be implemented. It won't block the bad stuff, but it will block vital emergency communications. Thousands of people will die.
Re: (Score:2)
Airlines went smoke free , they would all go bankrupt
Pubs, restaurants , cafes would go broke with no smoking laws
Every kid would be molested if homosexuality was legalised
etc etc etc etc
and NONE of it happened.
Re:How? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Just to add, even if it CAN be done the way to do it would have to be cloud based anyway. I mean, right now, some poor guy at YouTube goes though videos looking just for this stuff. All day, every day, looking and watching horrific videos of cp and violent content. Its one of the few AI uses that can save, at least a few people of PTSD.
So now, will the media companies AND device companies do this on each text message and photo sent? Who would be responsible in case of Android phones? The maker or Go
Re: (Score:3)
How are they supposed to do this?
Apple already has this functionality. [apple.com] Mostly, the issue is that presently you can't get the sort of image recognition technology necessary into the "burner phone" price point. Oh. This all makes sense now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple already has this functionality. [apple.com]
Not really. This functionality Apple has depends on software makers to implement it and support it. Ticking the little button makes Apple apps work, great for Facetime, or iMessages, but that's about it. Kids sending and receiving nudes via Snapchat will still be able to do so. Meta conclusively stated it will not support functionality that allows external scanning of messages in WhatsApp or Messenger, including Communication Safety. The camera app may analyse the image for nudes, but literally every other
Re: (Score:2)
There is two technical hardware-software ways and one software-only way.
a) Mechanical shutters and red LED required on devices camera-side when recording videos or photos (so both subjects AND the user know when the camera is engaged.) The Camera can only be activated if the FaceID is active, and the parental controls are active. Any app that attempts to use the camera requires the FaceID to be positive match to an adult registered to the device. If the red LED is off or the mechanical shutter is not closed
Re: (Score:3)
How are they supposed to do this?
Trivially easy. Block all images and all cameras on all phones, period.
And let millions of grandmas who can no longer video chat with their grandchildren on their phones deal with the morons in charge. I'm sure they'll have plenty of pitchforks and torches handy.
Re: How? (Score:2)
OO
V
Re: How? (Score:2, Insightful)
Would it be far easier just to ban children from using phones, than some sort of AI/driver license thing? (require all adults buying phones to contractually agree never to give to children, like cigarettes or alcohol)
Re: (Score:2)
Another option: Route all data through a network proxy owned by the UK gov... unless you verify your age.
Personally, I'm sick of governments forcing ambiguous and near impossible requirements on other companies without providing any actual options that would satisfy those requirements. How can one say they'll do this when "this" isn't actually defined?
Starting with your (anonymouscoward52236) idea: ban children from using phones
Then default the phone settings to proxy all traffic through some service - that
Re: (Score:2)
They want to replace the TV nanny with the internet nanny, except the internet is not centralized like TV stations. So yeah, ban children from the internet, is the only way. Anything else, can be circumvented. Unless its something like beepers or very old phones (couple of lines of text), but who uses those anymore.
Imagine if a child takes a pic of themselves naked and share it with their friends. Who is at fault?
Re: (Score:2)
They want to replace the TV nanny with the internet nanny, except the internet is not centralized like TV stations. So yeah, ban children from the internet, is the only way. Anything else, can be circumvented.
This is why I suggested just pushing it through a proxy. Then they can pick a proxy provider for their kids - full block, whitelisted minimal sites, teen friendly, whatever... but no need to burden the OS or apps much.
Imagine if a child takes a pic of themselves naked and share it with their friends. Who is at fault?
That assumes there is fault and that it is wrong. Your point stands though - I don't want to make that call.
Is your kid allowed to get pics from social sites? If so, they might get a pic of something you disagree with. Block it or tough titties.
Asking a global provider to provide filtering tha
Re: (Score:1)
It would be trivial to simply omit all user-submitted images and video from the client for accounts designated as the "under 13" age group. Of course, that would make it really hard to make the service addictive and traffic monetize-able too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, isn't that what the precious AIs (that are installed on literally nowadays) can be tasked with?
Or, maybe every kid doesn't need an $800 smartphone... if the parent(s) feel the need to track their kid on their way to school, something like a Jitterbug (barebones alphanumeric phone) should be fine.
Re: How? (Score:2)
You really do not understand what is going on here?
REALLY not?
Re: How? (Score:2)
Yeah, also do they know there's more than one camera app out there? They'd all need to start using some sort of a bolt-on image recognition framework.
The biggest worry being that they'd request access to scan ALL your photos.
Also, this kind of filter would mean that every phone out there would need to be bound either to a verified online account (like Google, Facebook) or to a government-issued digital ID.
Personally, I think the way it should work is that every phone should by default ship in with a child m
Re:How? (Score:4, Interesting)
And they are starting to kick MS/Google/etc out t as well as US credit cards, payment systems, etc etc etc. Worse, they will be able to export those solution to the rest of the world.
Are many of these things going to be initially as good as the established ones, no, not at all, but they will catch up. And now they have the reasons and the will to do it.
They are saying "NO" to US military and their illegal war in the Middle East.
Remember the USA is just 4% of the worlds population, do US companies want to be locked out of the other 96% ?
Great thing about democracy is that every country can decide and not be dictated to by the USA.
I see Apples new OS (to be released in October) probably meets the UKs requirements. , and I am equally sure that Google has been working on this for ages too just in case the need it. It's called getting ahead of the problem. And once it is in one country, it will soon be in all countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that the type of censorship demanded calls for human-level intelligence, how do you expect Google or anybody else to solve that problem given the current state of the art?
Re: (Score:2)
This action has been talked about for years by various nations, so it is of no surprise to anyone.
And like all multinationals, if they do not have to do something, they won't unless its in their (and only their) best interests.
Doing nothing is no longer an option.
Re: How? (Score:1)
Nudity detection isn't exactly a new technology, and the results don't have to be perfect/infallible to passify lawmakers. Love it or hate it as public policy, but technically it's possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Linux and ARM would disagree. Probably loads more too.
Re: How? (Score:1)
They're doing pretty well at building an invisible wall to keep the US out. This expertise can likely be extended to other areas.
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
And did you notice that the people responsible for the legislation don't seem to agree on who is at fault? They quote MPs who're blaming social media companies, and the PM is putting the burden on phone makers. How does demanding phone makers do something punishing social media companies? "Facebook is evil, let's make Apple change their phones." Huh?
Re: How? (Score:5, Insightful)
The p.m. is giving companies a chance to get ahead of the legislation. If you are phone manufacturer you put together a plan and a timeline and says we can't do it in 3 months but here's our plan to do it in six. And then 4 months in you go back to the government and say well we've had these setbacks and we've had these things happen that we couldn't account for and it will be eight more months before we're compliant. Eventually government's to pursue these regulations will wane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How? (Score:4, Insightful)
The p.m. is giving companies a chance to get ahead of the legislation. If you are phone manufacturer you put together a plan and a timeline and says we can't do it in 3 months but here's our plan to do it in six.
And if you are a phone manufacturer and you tell them, "Our plan is to ignore your country until the next election, when your government will probably go away anyway," what then? Or if the answer is, "We can either keep England or California, and we choose California," what then?
Something like what they are asking for has to be done in a way that protects privacy all around, including, potentially, privacy of the minor from excessive intrusion by the parents, so you would have to allow an option for the kid to send the content to parents for approval.
For live photographs, that permission would have to be requested by the kid, and the content stored on device, but sequestered in such a way that the kid can't access it without parental approval. Otherwise, if you don't allow the photo to be taken at all, you wouldn't be able to have your kid take photos of art in museums without unlocking their devices (which would defeat the protection purposes), and if the phone automatically sends it for approval (rather than manually), you'd run the risk of kids' selfie porn getting automatically sent to their parents, making their parents potentially legally liable (not to mention probably psychologically scarred).
And all of this has to be done in such a way that none of the data can leave the device for any reason, under any circumstances, without the explicit permission of the owner of the device. That also means zero automatic reporting to anyone that content was flagged at all, because of the risk of such flagging triggering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of the young people by others with access to those reports (e.g. pervy local law enforcement having a report of who all the bad girls are, or worse, getting access to the photos).
More importantly, this ideally should be done such in a way that it would be technically infeasible to comply with any future law mandating automatic reporting. And this is the truly hard part, because I have no idea how you'd pull that off. Mitigating the risk of future government overreach is actually the hardest aspect of this sort of detection from a privacy perspective, and given how many government officials are frothing at the mouth, breathlessly demanding such privacy violations, it's easy to see why such protection is so important.
Doing this right is potentially challenging to get right, and there are a lot of sharp edges. Worse, those sharp edges could cause regulatory problems in other countries, and because cell phones don't stay in one place, that can be a nasty problem.
Give them a ten-year implementation deadline with an eight-year design deadline. To be blunt, if England wanted this in six months, they should have asked in 2016.
But, but, but... (Score:2)
We want it so it must be feasible
OR
I'm sure AI can do it :)
Re: But, but, but... (Score:1)
Or, gtf away from our kids with your mind destroying bs.
Re: (Score:2)
Phone makers could stop putting cameras in the phones.. It won't stop users sending obscene pictures from other sources, but it will stop them sending naked pictures of themselves.
It would also makes phones cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
Phone makers could stop putting cameras in the phones.. It won't stop users sending obscene pictures from other sources, but it will stop them sending naked pictures of themselves.
It would also makes phones cheaper.
Having a no-photo phone option would be great for military contractors, who often work where cameras aren't allowed. And while having a camera with me all the time is kind of neat at some level, I also recognize that it has been psychologically unhealthy for a lot of young people — particularly those with body image problems. So requiring cell phone makers to offer camera-free options would actually make a lot of sense. Nudity is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to teens' use of camera pho
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the "I'm going to take my toys and go home" threat, uttered by children and oligarchs everywhere.
Less "I'm taking my toys and going home" and more "I don't think I have toys we can use to play this game."
Make no mistake many empty threats are empty, but this problem has a virtually unworkable solution. You're now talking about fundamentally re-writing OS level APIs in an incompatible way. You want the OS to curate and control the camera image? Great you've just completely broken RAW camera access used by countless apps. Want to prevent the sharing of images? Great, now you've broken the security model
It's not about the p0rn (Score:1)
Over the years, when a certain objective is sought (mostly to do with privacy, encryption, rights), the notion of p0rn or ch*ld p0rn is used as a flag waved in everyone's faces -- to get the populace riled up (who wouldn't?) so nefarious goals can be achieved.
How many companies do you imagine are sitting on FISA Warrants to legally (and secretly) facilitate MITM apparatus? Think: iCloud, messenger systems, and so on. There is a massive surveillance effort on the public, that is not just isolated to the
Re: (Score:2)
STOP THE TIDES! (Score:4, Funny)
Some Prime Minister decided his name is King Cnut and has ordered the tides of pornography to halt.
This order will work no better then Cnut's did.
Re: (Score:2)
The version I read was that Cnut was actually demonstrating to his fawning courtiers that there were limits to his power and that they were full of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Some Prime Minister decided his name is King Cnut and has ordered the tides of pornography to halt.
This order will work no better then Cnut's did.
I'm less worried about Starmer as King Cnut, he's well intentioned but delusional and incompetent... I'm more concerned about how these laws will be used by King Cunt's like Nigel Farage if they ever gained power. For this reason alone these laws need to be opposed but the fools voting for fascists like Farage are just telling politicians like Starmer that they want more fascism (and is anyone surprised they're getting it?).
How stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Just mandate that phones used by minors do not include a camera. You know, dumb phones without cameras. Also, teach your fucking kids that sending nude photos is not acceptable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Teaching your kids that it is not acceptable will not stop them from doing it.
Young kids only understand consequences. Many of them get good at acting guilty and crying their way out of punishment whenever they get caught. They learn that the magic words "I understand why it was wrong" reduces potential punishments by tenfold. And then they turn around and do it again the moment they think they won't get caught (and have some reason to do whatever it is).
It's still good to teach ones' kids about unaccept
Re: (Score:2)
Young kids only understand immediate consequences. Like, seconds to minutes after. Doing something like taking a picture, and then it causing problems hours, or more likely days or weeks later has no impact on their decision making.
Re: How stupid (Score:2)
Some people never leave that phase.
Re: (Score:2)
Just mandate that phones used by minors do not include a camera. You know, dumb phones without cameras.
And also without a display (but can show sms texts, to address the viewing part of the directive)? In other words, a dumb (flip) phone. Perhaps Motorola can re-introduce the zombie apocalypse phone (the MotoFone F3).
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work. Mandate that all phones do not include a camera, and block the display of all images and video on all cameras.
Complying with this is trivially easy, and has the side benefit of showing how incredibly stupid and delusional it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how does your idea protect kids from being nudified and the picture sent to everyone in the class ?
and exactly what age do you teach complex social subjects like this, and "fake news", Phishing scams, etc etc ect ?
I am guessing you don't know of any victims, or don't care about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you need Medial CoPilot to prescribe you some chill pills.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, "Medical CoPilot".
Re: (Score:2)
The stupidity is breathtaking (Score:2, Insightful)
It's parents who should have that responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume the parents really, actually, do the parenting, and don't just plop the kid in front of their PS6 and their tablet.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions (Score:3)
How could this law be implemented without every phone being equiped with extremely intrusive surveillance technology that can be turned against journalists, activists, protesters, any pretty much any citizen by any future government ?
Re:The road to hell is paved with good intentions (Score:4, Insightful)
There are no good intentions.
That intrusive surveillance technology is the goal, not an unintended side effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean like we already have on practically every device?
Explicit Images (Score:2)
I, for one, am glad someone is finally cracking down on explicit images. If you have words to say, post them as actual text! Don't just throw text onto an image and call it a "meme," because that's totally lame.
Corparate legistlation (Score:5, Interesting)
From this quote there is a VERY important quote.
"their senior managers could be made criminally liable."
We need to start adding this to the USA regulations instead of well here is your fine, while they just make that part of doing business.
Re: (Score:1)
Jail plutocrats in the US? Even Donald's frothy anti-immigrant bigotry wasn't enough to legislate real punishment for business owners. They are Holy.
Simple Solution (Score:3)
Fixed.
I have a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
How about parents say no (Score:3)
Sheesh, not that hard.
what about (Score:2)
Temporary workaround (Score:1)
On phone unlock and frequently thereafter, have the user prove they are over 18.
If they can't or won't, then the phone reverts to "text only" mode, where the only images you see are those provided by the OS or compiled in the apps. Web sites load with placeholder images. Images stored in the camera roll and in the SMS app are replaced with placeholders. The camera is turned off. You get the idea.
I call it a "temporary workaround" because ideally it will result in a political compromise.
Parents are lazy (Score:3)
Apple already has this capability built into the phones as of the current IOS.
Settings -> Screen Time -> Communication Safety
Settings -> Screen TIme -> Content and Privacy Restrictions
Settings -> Screen Time -> Lock Screen Time Settings
The problem is parents are either too lazy, too stupid or unwilling to bother setting it up and want someone else to do it for them.
If that's not enough, the extreme version sees Apple adding a software toggle switch that disables all cellular and wi-fi --DATA--
which cannot be re-enabled without a passcode. This effectively turns the smartphone into a phone only so you can stay in
contact with your kiddo. In addition to preventing them from viewing ( gasp ) digital nudity, it keeps em off the evil internet and social
media as well. Hell, they might even go outside and touch some grass or something.
Problem solved.
The only folks who are inconvenienced by this are the kids and their parents leaving the rest of the adult world well enough alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Partially false. The functions you talk about are specific to select apps which have implemented them. That's all good and fine if you lock down your phone so that the only thing your kid can do is use iMessage or Facetime, but as soon as you want to use WhatsApp, Messenger, a different camera app, or god forbid, the "I send nudes to my friends" app of choice: Snapchat, those settings do fuck all.
This will require a per app functionality. Simply getting your kid an iPhone isn't enough.
Targetting the wrong people. Again (Score:2)
All of this is so fucking stupid because the solution is simple - require ISPs (and VPNs if th
What they really mean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Peper? (Score:2)
And then they will be demanding that the paper manufacturers limit what can be printed on their paper! Paper is to blame for so many social ills. It's been on a slippery slope since the printing press was used the first time to print a book. A BOOK! Time to ban those too.
(Yeah, it's the something absurdum fallacy, one of my favorites.)
Parenting? (Score:2)
When technology fails to raise your children for you the solution is not more technology.
jfc
Calling his bluff (Score:2)
Do not comply in advance. Make him pass his uber-law. Then let him try and enforce it.
Political plot! (Score:3)
This is a plot to hide news about Donald Trump, using the the fact he has a neck vagina that won't pass the smut filter.
Changing language (Score:3)
tech companies must activate nudity-detection algorithms or other technical solutions on smartphones and tablets to prevent users taking photos or sharing images of genitalia unless they are verified as adults.
This being the UK, I assume by "children" they actually mean adolescents. Technically:
A child is typically defined as a young person between infancy and the onset of puberty (usually ages 0 to 11). An adolescent is a transitional developmental stage between childhood and adulthood characterized by the onset of puberty, identity formation, and increasing independence (usually ages 10 to 19+)
But I suspect for a lot of younger people reading this, that distinction has been lost. "Child" now means a legal "minor", ie under 18in UK. OK, language changes, but in this case so has culture. Western, or at least English-speaking countries have increasingly been infantilising young adults. Instead of teaching "young men" not to send dick-pics, we are treating them as literal children, with no agency, no responsibility. Everyone is a victim.
It would also help if we adults did not have a moral panic every time an adolescent expressed sexuality. Instead of denying that they are hormone-ravaged young adults, and treating them as babies, we could accept that, and try to guide their behaviour? But adolescents will always rebel to some extent, when faced with the hypocrisy of their parents.
\o/ (Score:1)
So, every image will be blurred from now on?
Wait a moment! (Score:2)
I appreciate this will be unpopular and brings it's own set of difficulties but we could use AI to filter images locally. Like a smarter Net Nanny. Yes some will get around it but most will not.
I'm not advocating for it but it's a possibility.
Hill he's willing to die on? (Score:2)
No Youtube Advertisments, then? (Score:2)
Soon Internet Access will require Age Verification (Score:2)
... ANY internet access.
Of course just to protect the children. That all internet access will then be linked to the user personally is just an unavoidable side-effect.
But we need to think of the children!
Whilst I am sure they can do more and chose not to (Score:2)
Re: What's next? (Score:2)
I suspect that the real-life ending would similar, in that protecting children from literally every image, video, sound, etc that some authority thinks they need protecting from would yield adults completely unable to deal with anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Citizen, you are suspected of thinking something indecent. Here is 40 hours of re-education. Big Brother is watching...