Looks like UK is going the same way as a few states. Spare a thought for us. So messed up this increasing surveillance state.

    • pdxfed@lemmy.worldBanned
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Some potential voice acting work for Jason Statham if expendables and F&F franchises ever finally call it quits.

  • LukefromDC@kolektiva.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    2 years ago

    @CrypticCoffee
    As for me, I will never, ever use any site that demands a drivers license or a face scan to get on. I’d sooner totally disconnect from the open Internet and move all my work to the darknet only.

    Zero voluntary cooperation!

    • RooPappy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 years ago

      “If they removed porn from the internet, there’d only be one site left… and it would be called ‘Bring Back the Porn!’” - Doctor Percival Cox

    • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      This has less to do with pornography than it does normalizing one more goddamn camera.

      Say it again for the people in the back.

  • LukefromDC@kolektiva.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    @CrypticCoffee Counter to that is obvious: DO NOT USE legal access modes, use Tor instead and access only sites that “block” the UK instead of complying.

    Hopefully most porn sites will do exactly that, like Pornhub already did to US states that demand driver’s license uploads (including Utah and Arkansa). When they attempted to comply with such a demand from Louisiana, open traffic from there dropped 80% and presumably VPN and Tor access jumped.

    This told all porn sites that it’s not worth the programmer time to even attempt to service legal traffic from such jurisdictions. Block non-Tor/non-VPN connections and enjoy immunity.

    Best of all, it only takes ONE jurisdiction on the whole planet that won’t censor porn to make these measures globally ineffective. Crack anywhere, play everywhere. This gives new meaning to saying “fuck you” to the government.

    Any attempt by the UK to block Tor will fail: China can’t reliably block it, and the Great Firewall of China has far more resources than “Hadrian’s Firewall.” Trying to jail people for using Tor would be nearly as difficult and would also face the legal obstacle of jury nullification. This will go the way of the failed 21 drinking age and 55 mph speed limits in the US.

    As governments try to crack down on porn, on dissent, and on criticism of their Great Leaders, the clearnet will be of declining importance (possibly used only for shopping) and the darknet will become more important. Embrace the power of the darknet…

    https://torproject.org

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 years ago

    Y’see, back in the day parents were not technically literate because the world was mid-societal shift. “Protect the children” (because parents are unable to) had some justification.

    Today, basic computer literacy is a survival skill in the UK. The level of literacy needed to track your own kid is not that high (or expensive to rent).

    If you are letting kids use tech you don’t understand, and are not willing to invest the time/money to track yourself, that’s a you problem. It shouldn’t become a me problem.

    As for “yeah but what about smart kids”, I’ve got some bad news for you. They will always find a way around ANYTHING you set up.

    • ohlaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 years ago

      Exactly. I was 17 teaching my parents about internet shit. I wasn’t smart, I still aren’t, but I also wasn’t. Anyway, the amount ov viruses I had to fix because of them downloading kenny_chesney.exe is… baffling.

    • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I really feel very uncomfortable with the notion of tracking the kids anyway. Arming them with knowledge as best as possible, and as usual showing interest in their behaviour to try and look as best as possible for signs of problems but ultimately kids are still people with their own lives even if people in development. Yes you need to protect them, to a certain extent, but ultimately some of this is no business but their own. You can try to educate and forewarn and hope some of it sticks but the tendency from my memory of being a kid is that that tends to be met with an eye-roll, this is probably where the temptation comes from to track children or drastically restrict the choices they’re able to make so they can’t ignore you but this is hardly a great way for that person in development to ultimately… develop.

      This is dicey though, not least because as yet another random person on the internet offering their unsolicited opinion, I don’t even have kids, and if you follow my logic to extremis, you basically have, “let the kids just figure it out on their own they’ll be fine” which definitely won’t apply to everything and can have disastrous consequences in some contexts. But nevertheless I think this concept of tracking, either covertly, or overtly with the intention of making a kind of panopticon effect for the kids, is likely ineffective but even if effective, is indicative of something going wrong with the intent of the surveillance.

      • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s a tricky one because of the nature of the net. Let’s say we have three kids: Timmy, Jimmy and Harry.

        Timmy starts looking up “tits”, because Timmy loves titties. He’s curious, and you probably want to have a talk about acting and how porn isn’t reality.

        Jimmy, well, Jimmy saw a videogame character tied up and it made him feel good, so he starts looking for that online. He’s about to explore the BDSM scene. He’s going to need the “safe sane consensual” talk, otherwise his explorations might get him, or someone else, hurt. He’ll need more of a talk than Timmy!

        Harry loves hentai; he found some when looking for pictures of his favourite cartoon character. Harry is going to need a long talk about fantasy Vs reality, otherwise he’s going to disappoint a lot of women! Wait a moment, most of the things he’s looking at involve animals and women… Might be time to get some therapy!

        In all three of these cases a different style and level of parental intervention was required. You watch your kids because they’re kids, and kids are experts at getting themselves (and others) hurt. Parents need to watch their kids because it’s their job to intervene, and to decide the method of intervention.

        However, we’ve not gone over the case of Lizzy, a girl cursed with religious fundamentalist parents. When they find out she’s more interested in girls than boys, she’ll be subjected to inhumane treatment to “fix” her. So there is a grey area here - not all parents should be parents.

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 years ago

    Good, might stop the creepy fuckers watching it in parliament…
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/neil-parish-banged-up-tractor-porn-b2439583.html (I also remember and was going to link an earlier and unrelated report that was done about MPs watching porn in parliament, but that one story has drowned out all other results and it’s too early for me to dig deeper)

    In all seriousness, this is obviously a terrible idea for many reasons.

  • Mango@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    Fuck everything about this with a spiky dildo.

    What the fuck is wrong with these people who think literally anything about porn needs has any relevance in government?

    • dfc09@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      They could worry about regulating the industry to prevent exploitation and trafficking, but God knows they’ll keep their hands out of that

    • TheFriendlyArtificer@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m doing my part!

      64Tib from the Tumblr and Reddit pornageddon. Most was legitimate cultural archiving, but a lot of other stuff got caught up as well.

  • ugh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    The headline is very misleading. Porn companies are considering facial recognition as an option for validating age. Governments are putting more pressure on porn websites to keep minors away from the content, but it’s very hard to thoroughly prove your identity online. A government issued photo ID is useless if you have nothing to compare it to visually. That’s why many websites use bank/credit card info as opposed to an ID.

    It is definitely a privacy concern if you worry about it being known that you watch porn, but I don’t think it’s right to fault the company.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      Company? It’s the UK communications regulator, Ofcom.

      They found that many on low incomes don’t have photocard ID when they rolled out voter ID despite opposition.

      Considering no one seems capable of withholding data from motivated hackers, this could be quite horrific.