Porn

[strawberrisc]

New laws that are soon to come into effect will require viewers of online pornography to provide ID in the form of bank details or possibly even photo ID.

AIBU to think that most people in their right minds won’t want to do this?

Not a journalist. Fuck the Daily Mail.

Give it a few hours and there'll be new sites and people veeeeey knowledgable about VPNs to bypass it.

I've heard that if you put a hat on a snowball in hell it will last longer than it will take for this to be bypassed.

It's better than nothing. It will by no stretch make porn inaccessible to children but it will at least make it a bit harder.

They were discussing this on the radio today and someone made the very valid point that there is a vast amount of pornographic content on Twitter..etc and no plans whatsoever to extend this to social media sites.

When there's a will there's a way and wankers will still wank.

Anything that makes the official statement that porn is hugely damaging to everyone, especially children, and is a massive future public health issue in the making, is a good thing.

Yes, people will bypass it, but also some people will not want to risk data breaches/exposure/having to go and buy a pass or whatever so will stop watching it. Or be less inclined to.

A government database of everybody who watches porn seems a very bad idea even if you are very strongly opposed to porn.

I reckon people will work out ways around it.

It'll push people to other sites that aren't specifically porn but have that along with extream gory content etc. I don't think it's a good idea...

VPNs, use your parents card, dark sites, massive data security risk using a private company to keep millions of peoples details secure - asking for trouble

"I reckon people will work out ways around it."

What's that saying? Where there's a willy there's a way.

But in principle it's a good idea to have an age-check, if I were to put my sensible adult hat on. Bloody hell though, the 15-year-old version of me would be devastated. Back then everything was so magnified. The right bit of nudity/sex scene/porn was the most exciting thing in the entire world. Nope. would not have been happy to have that taken away. Sorry modern teenage boys.

I think most of the people I've met who work in IT might be able to find a way round that. One even got so bored at a job interview test at the OU that he did a look (hack) into their system & found some v illegal porn related stuff + a girl who'd searched lab animal liberation groups & how to make a bomb. He told the interview panel. And didn't get the job.

I think most of the people I've met who work in IT might be able to find a way round that

Most 12 year olds could find a way around it and those that can't figure it out for themselves will learn through the grapevine. Still, it's a small bite from a big elephant and better than nothing. The bottom line is that the various negative aspects of the Internet will remain as long as we expect online anonymity to be the default.

He told the interview panel. And didn't get the job.

Quite right too. He's bloody lucky he didn't get a criminal conviction. Regardless of what he found, he havked jnto their system. That is a crime and he is ethically unfit to work in IT.

I supose the only benefit would be to stop people "accidentally" coming across porn.
Other than that it's a completely pointless excercise that will prevent no one.

toogoodtobetrue

White hat

Google it

Wow, what a ridiculously negative response to this.

OK, sure, it's probably a piece of piss for most people to get around, but surely this needs to be addressed, and surely that needs to start somewhere?

Just because the 'hurdle' is easily surmountable right now, doesn't mean the technology won't be that much better in 1, 2, 5, 10, XX years time.

Parents could parent instead

It’s pissing me right off! Talk about slowly stripping our rights. I know watching porn is hardly a right but it becomes an issue for those who manage sex addictions, are asexual but still want pleasure etc. ID for a coffee in Costa? ID for adult films when you’re 40 years old? I’m sure you’ll need ID to even enter a supermarket soon!

The company the govt. have given the contract to store the information is owned by the same people that own pornhub and redtube.
All that is going to change is that they are going to make more money.

Sorry, I got that wrong. The govt haven't given them a contact, but they will be the biggest age verifying service for the sites and therefore stand to rake in buckets of cash and have lots of lovely information about searches, preferences etc.

If it gives a message hat it's bad and damaging to children then it's a good thing, it will put some people off and show kids that it is not normal and the sex shown is also not normal. Excellent, been waiting so long for this. I feel so worried for my daughters who would have to have sex with boys who've been watching violent porn for years

It's wrong for the government to be involving itself in adults looking at porn. If you're old enough to legally have a contract for a phone or an ipad then you're old enough to look at it so it shouldn't be an issue.

Parents should have enough savvy to lock the devices down with parental controls and supervise their children online.

Also why do you have to prove you're 18 when the age of consent is 16? You're old enough at 16 to have sex just not to watch anyone else do it?!

@Meowzzz

It'll push people to other sites that aren't specifically porn but have that along with extream gory content etc. I don't think it's a good idea...VPNs, use your parents card, dark sites, massive data security risk using a private company to keep millions of peoples details secure - asking for trouble

That’s what I think

It will just push people on to dodgier sites with dodgier porn

wankers will still wank

araiwa

I'm an IT Risk Manager so thanks but I don't need to google White Hat or any other term to do with pentesting. If you bothered to read the post I responded to, before you rushed to educate me, you would have seen that the person in question was very clearly not authorised to do what he did. My comments stand.