UK's pornography age checks come into force from 15th July

[spacein_vader]

At least now when voters ask politicians why the same rules don't apply online as offline then can claim they do.

Offline you need to be 18 to buy pornography. Online you already have to be 18 to buy pornography AND be 18 to take out the contract that allows you to connect to said pornography. So it already has twice the age checks buying a mag from a corner shop does.

[atemporal]

Offline you need to be 18 to buy pornography. Online you already have to be 18 to buy pornography AND be 18 to take out the contract that allows you to connect to said pornography. So it already has twice the age checks buying a mag from a corner shop does.

Interesting point. But they would argue the issue is that anyone can view it for free without any checks. I was certainly able to yesterday. High def videos readily accessible in a very small number of clicks. Some would even play from the search engine - no need to even visit a site. So the issue is not the equivalent of buying of the mag, it's the equivalent of having those mags plastered all over the place so people can read them if they want to. It'd be like your local library having a bookcase of them and not checking who was pulling them off the shelves. And it's what annoys me so much ie that this change seems to achieve virtually nothing to stop that. If you can access it via a search engine what is the point in making the sites themselves harder to access?

[Mr_Jon]

It'd be like your local library having a bookcase of them and not checking who was pulling them off

oo-er

[drak15]

Interesting point. But they would argue the issue is that anyone can view it for free without any checks. I was certainly able to yesterday. High def videos readily accessible in a very small number of clicks. Some would even play from the search engine - no need to even visit a site. So the issue is not the equivalent of buying of the mag, it's the equivalent of having those mags plastered all over the place so people can read them if they want to. It'd be like your local library having a bookcase of them and not checking who was pulling them off the shelves. And it's what annoys me so much ie that this change seems to achieve virtually nothing to stop that. If you can access it via a search engine what is the point in making the sites themselves harder to access?

yes exactly , it is a very interesting point but that's the problem everyone wants the free

[Corky34]

Offline you need to be 18 to buy pornography. Online you already have to be 18 to buy pornography AND be 18 to take out the contract that allows you to connect to said pornography. So it already has twice the age checks buying a mag from a corner shop does.

As a politician you can't go saying things like that, not only are you telling a voter how to parent but you're also telling them that they're wrong, add in the impression that you're talking down to them while you try explaining why the Internet already has an age check built into it, much easier to legislate than educate.

Interesting point. But they would argue the issue is that anyone can view it for free without any checks. I was certainly able to yesterday. High def videos readily accessible in a very small number of clicks. Some would even play from the search engine - no need to even visit a site. So the issue is not the equivalent of buying of the mag, it's the equivalent of having those mags plastered all over the place so people can read them if they want to. It'd be like your local library having a bookcase of them and not checking who was pulling them off the shelves. And it's what annoys me so much ie that this change seems to achieve virtually nothing to stop that. If you can access it via a search engine what is the point in making the sites themselves harder to access?

The thing is not anyone can access it, you either have to be over 18/16(?) to legally sign a contract (such as the sort you sign when taking out broadband) or you have to seek the permission of a guardian/parent/bill payer, even with public WiFi (afaik) the owner of the network is ultimately responsible.

[rich835]

They'll never be able to enforce this, there's always a way round it, but they have to try.
If it prevents only a percentage of under-age access, then it's a start.

[Ttaskmaster]

Stand outside coffee shop or hospital, log into free wifi, porn access readily available.

[Corky34]

They'll never be able to enforce this, there's always a way round it, but they have to try.
If it prevents only a percentage of under-age access, then it's a start.

Even if it does more harm than good?

[Ttaskmaster]

Even if it does more harm than good?

Is that not the whole idea of bans and restrictions, these days?

[Corky34]

What, to do more harm than good? Nope, sorry you've lost me on that one, I'd need that explaining to me.

[Ttaskmaster]

What, to do more harm than good? Nope, sorry you've lost me on that one, I'd need that explaining to me.

It seems every time they ban or restrict something, it mostly only affects those who were behaving themselves in the first place.

[atemporal]

They'll never be able to enforce this, there's always a way round it, but they have to try.
If it prevents only a percentage of under-age access, then it's a start.

While I kind of agree with the sentiment re protecting under age folk can you see how poor the logic in that statement is? You start by saying "it can't be fixed" then say "but a botched incomplete non-solution is a start". Is it? is it that good? Does it solve anything? No - as you already acknowledge. Search engines, which are the gateway path on someone's journey into this stuff, are exempt. Ergo, costly and pointless. And you might well be right it's a start. A start in a direction that is not a great trajectory of state meddling/interfering/monitoring/data gathering/further censorship or whatever. I'll leave it to you to decide how far you reckon that dystopian future will progress, but one thing is for sure. Our current law makers, them wot do such a great job of agreeing over brexit and the like, are sure not going to do a better job of these sort of laws. I find it uneasy, not because of the stated aim - which it will fail at - but because of the slippery slope I fear will follow into areas I do care more about.

If you haven't yet you might want to read about some of the ways China is using data from the internet to vet and reward/inhibit its citizens!

[atemporal]

Stand outside coffee shop or hospital, log into free wifi, porn access readily available.

call me old fashioned but I wouldn't be comfortable viewing such content in public. It's bad enough in private - not something you want advertising surely? That said I once realised the lady next to me on the bus was reading something akin to 50 shades on her kindle. I'm not sure if she realised everyone who had glanced at the screen in the commute crush knew what she was so engrossed in. But the knowing smirks among the fellow commuters suggested I wasn't the only one who'd clocked it. Words apparently then are ok. But pictures. No no no. Not ok.

[Saracen999]

---

The point I've heard politicians make, and I somewhat mocked it earlier but there is some truth to it, is that this system should prevent accidental exposure, by under-age net-users that weren't looking for it.

So sure, we all know it'll be easy to bypass and we know how, but the fact is that any under-age user using those bypass methods isn't going to stumble on something unintended by accident.

You aren't (short of draconian measures) going to stop kids hunting for porn from finding it but this measure might stop accidental .... umm .... exposure.

[Corky34]

The worst part is the governments own assessment admits that this AV system will drive some people into the darker parts of the internet and potentially expose them to even less savory materiel, that it's going to cost around £5m a year and only prevent around 13% of children who use the internet from viewing pornography, and that it's going to be targeted by hackers and increase fraud.

[Saracen999]

But apart from that?