I'd like to believe that technical people at OFCOM actually know the impossibility of what they're being asked to implement but are just going through the motions, so their bosses/politicians can put out pointless press releases like this.
Trying to restrict access to content on the Internet by requiring "robust" age verification was never going to achieve the goals they stated, and has a number of predictable (and already seen) negative side-effects.
Unfortunately governments all over the place seem intent on continuing this type of regulation, I presume so they can be seen to be doing something. Good time to be in the VPN game, I'd guess.
Well, OFCOM lost all credibility with me and many on how they failed to fix the Vectone UK mess. Vectone UK was a virtual operator, however they owned the number range they allocated(Most MVNO's get a block from the provider they use for their network, Vectone behind the scene would shop around and by owning the number range, could made switching core network easier I presume). So even when you ported to another network, as they owned the number, they would set up routing to the new provider(This is how number porting works, of which I was unaware as I'm sure many are not). Issue is that if the provider goes bust, all those numbers go with them. So anyone who had a number that originated from them, even if they ported it to another network, suddenly lost not only their number, but any way shape or form of getting it back. The impact was devastating for many, including myself. All 2FA, or any account ties to that number you found yourself unable to control. Even if you had access to the account, to change the number would see them use best practice security to send a verification code to the old number. THis created a right nightmare as you can imagine with all the automated support we now have. So months of fun and games, with the odd gotcha popping up overlooked from time to time.
OFCOM failed to do anything, they could have forced them to sell the number range, taken over control of the umber range, or proactively thought out such situations due to the way they port numbers being that the new provider gets control of that number and not at the mercy of the previous provider, which in this case went bust.
But like many, I myself contacted OFCOM and found a chocolate teapot far more comforting and with better results.
What with the UK pushing digital ID, funny anecdote there - I did jury service recently and they do not accept a digital ID as proof of ID, nor do they accept a selfie either as proof of age or ID ( we all had a good laugh as was done in the best possible taste ).
That is one option, but then you get into the world of Corporate VPNs which are heavily in use and it would seriously cause problems if you banned.
Then you're into "what about all TLS connections" which can be used to send traffic, so you have to do TLS interception at scale, which is a very non-trivial problem to try and solve.
Then you're into non-TLS encrypted protocols, so your only option there is to block anything you can't intercept.....
At that point you've pretty much broken Internet access in your country, might as well just chop the cables :P
They can fine all they want, if the company doesn't have any entity in said territory they can just ignore it. What Ofcom succeeded to achieve though is to deter more and more foreign IT companies to ever expand and create jobs in the UK.
> They can fine all they want, if the company doesn't have any entity in said territory they can just ignore it.
Try running an online poker site abroad and serve US players and find out how that'll work out for you.
Didn't work out well for Lithuanian/Canadian/Israeli Isai Scheinberg founder of Poker Stars, nor Calvin Ayre, the founder of the Bodog, who ended up on the FBI's top 10 list. United States reportedly sought* to seize around $3 billion worth of assets from 3 major online poker companies at the time.
This is the UK we’re talking about, not the US. Watch out, they might send you a strongly worded email, then they’ll follow it up with a D-notice to prevent the media from telling everyone how you embarrassed them.
Eh, maybe? Maybe not? What if years later someone from that company flies through the UK? And if you think you can avoid connecting flights there, what if a flight from NY to CDG has to do an emergency landing and chooses somewhere in the UK?
I mean, while this might be true, I'm not sure democracies being totally incapable of regulating the internet is a good place to be. I'm not sure a race to the bottom (if you attempt to regulate us in anyway we'll leave/go complain to the US president) is really a great outcome here. "Porn websites should check your age" is not some radical totalitarian demand I think?
I think it actually is a radical totalitarian demand, if the only accepted form of age verification is government ID scans or selfie face capture. People should have a right to serve content without having to deal with the SPII of their clients.
The alternative to the OSA is not "being totally incapable of regulating the internet". There's a wide, wide gap between complete lack of regulation and what the UK has done.
Do you really believe Ofcom and the UK establishment in general really care about the children or terrorists when they are pushing for mandatory digital ID and age-verification in every aspect of our digital lives or are you playing naive?
This law demands a surveillance architecture, not just porn regulation. Once the norm and mechanism to de-anonymize content use exists, it can be expanded to any content, including political dissent, and for both accessing AND contributing to content (like, for example, on HN). The line should be drawn here.
The vague potential harm of sex doesn't justify the concrete harm of abolishing digital privacy. Further, it's just sex. Equating imagery of legal, natural activity with physical danger is an error.
It is blatantly dangerous to justify stripping citizens of their anonymity. The lawmakers who proposed this are oppressors. They are the danger to our children.
Everyone disagreeing with this poster, are you okay with living in a society where anything goes? Do we give up trying to minimise harms because it is hard to do? The effort to regulate this sort of access has to start in some shape or form and then improved.
Come up with a better solution, provide a proof of concept and yes regulatory agencies / governments will take notice. People like us work in these agencies. Let's propose better ways of achieving the same goal of reducing porn exposure to minors - not keep bashing the initiative taken.
I think the "surveilance capitalism" and centralization of companies like Meta, Google etc has made many of us very sensitive to any systems that will leave traces of us against our will, be it porn, flock cameras or anything else that is similar.
I think we would have a lot less of a pushback against such policing efforts if governments had done a better job at reigning in tracking on the internet from the start. "Porn websites should check your age" is not that radical, but in a world where it doesn't feel unrealistic that much of the information about you is correlated and processed in ways that are not in your personal best interest, then it becomes another loop in the proverbial noose that can be used to hang us all.
That’s what’s so pernicious about this manipulative tactic; you’re protecting the children, after all, right?
The real motivation behind this effort is not protecting children (the signal for that is all over the place), it’s about interrupting and conditioning society for a total surveillance state that controls or suppresses speech and thought. As always, the “think of the children” is just a typically cynical, narcissistic manipulation of people’s natural instincts to protect children.
Of course the underlying motivation is totalitarian. What, do you think they’re just going to come out and say “ok, peasants, we are not going to implement totalitarianism now”? No, they always sneak it in little by little, just as they always have, to the point that people still don’t understand what is going on in spite of things being as bad as they already are.
This is basically grooming, and no, the van does not have candy in it, kid.
If they actually cared about kids, they would have not banned and controlled adults from engaging in legal things freely, or they would have banned pornography as a clear societal ill. They could have also barred children from the open internet in general by allowing children only on a white/allow list; which is exponentially easier to implement, there is government justification, they are not full legal persons, and it can be enforced and penalized with existing child endangerment laws… you give access to a child, you are punished, just like if you, e.g., give children access to alcohol or any number of things.
What they choose to implement instead was that adults have to reveal their identity, essentially digital “show me your papers!”
The ruling class even constantly, openly talk about how they want everyone to have to provide their real identity on the internet to speak. They’re narcissists; all you have to do is listen to what they do and say to the audience they seek admiration from to see through the manipulation and lies directed towards you.
The dots are right next to each other and are labeled A and B. I am always a bit confused why so many people cannot, maybe don’t want to connect obvious dots; maybe because of what it means, not wanting to face reality because it causes discomfort in what they believe about things and themselves?
“I supported them and voted for them/this system. How could they be totalitarian? I would never vote for totalitarian control over myself, because I am smart and good. Therefore their intentions and motivations must be pure”. It’s a common abuse trap. It is also the underlying psychological manipulation mechanics of other cults and con artists, not just contemporary politicians.
The alternative is that people have a venue to speak that is outside of government intervention.
While we can all see potential abuse (yelling FIRE in a crowded theater), surely the IRL abuse by governments is equally clear, with possibly a higher potential for damage.
Yeah, they didn't really think through the fact they're publishing big lists of sites without effective age verification in all the investigation notices on their website..
I'd like to think somewhere in the newsroom somebody read off the list of websites, nobody admitted to visiting, so they had to conclude none of them had name recognition.
Heavy tangent: I finally tested the age verification thing in France: it's fine. I heavily dislike the biometric verification, it feels it can be gamed easily and in my opinion is dangerous, but the e-Id/bank verification seems solid.
Weirdly, it might makes 'local' porn site like Dorcel who used to ask for credit cards for age verification (because of prior regulation not followed by mindgeek) more popular in the long run.
Except by ogling your ID, the attendant isn't making a copy and linking it to your purchase in a database that will get breached, or shared with the wrong future government.
erm, I think they're now called "sex workers" but self-employed or digital prostitutes is more correct now, given the inability to tell if you're dealing with a person or AI hologram!
why I specified, prostitute, as the restrictions with online sexiness, will push unrequited demand, back into real life, where nobody is concerned with bieng all nicy nice about the "titles" involved, it's kinks for sale, maddness, life on the edge, or cartoon's, so for those too chicken to buy a piece of tail, then they can buy a blow up doll, or something else in brown paper, or soon enough, personal AI...assistants, rather then the variety you can see getting lunch at noon, on the corner of young and bloor, which AI will never be able to simulate, ha!, anybody who can make it past a receptionist like those, still able to conduct serios negotiations, is made from stern and focused material indeed.
Readit News
Trying to restrict access to content on the Internet by requiring "robust" age verification was never going to achieve the goals they stated, and has a number of predictable (and already seen) negative side-effects.
Unfortunately governments all over the place seem intent on continuing this type of regulation, I presume so they can be seen to be doing something. Good time to be in the VPN game, I'd guess.
OFCOM failed to do anything, they could have forced them to sell the number range, taken over control of the umber range, or proactively thought out such situations due to the way they port numbers being that the new provider gets control of that number and not at the mercy of the previous provider, which in this case went bust.
Many other stories on this here: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/vectone-is-dead.406...
But like many, I myself contacted OFCOM and found a chocolate teapot far more comforting and with better results.
What with the UK pushing digital ID, funny anecdote there - I did jury service recently and they do not accept a digital ID as proof of ID, nor do they accept a selfie either as proof of age or ID ( we all had a good laugh as was done in the best possible taste ).
Then you're into "what about all TLS connections" which can be used to send traffic, so you have to do TLS interception at scale, which is a very non-trivial problem to try and solve.
Then you're into non-TLS encrypted protocols, so your only option there is to block anything you can't intercept.....
At that point you've pretty much broken Internet access in your country, might as well just chop the cables :P
Try running an online poker site abroad and serve US players and find out how that'll work out for you.
Didn't work out well for Lithuanian/Canadian/Israeli Isai Scheinberg founder of Poker Stars, nor Calvin Ayre, the founder of the Bodog, who ended up on the FBI's top 10 list. United States reportedly sought* to seize around $3 billion worth of assets from 3 major online poker companies at the time.
https://poker.stackexchange.com/questions/457/is-online-poke...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg
* Stop laughing. It's a hypothetical, wherein the US government only does internally lawful acts.
Dead Comment
Eh, maybe? Maybe not? What if years later someone from that company flies through the UK? And if you think you can avoid connecting flights there, what if a flight from NY to CDG has to do an emergency landing and chooses somewhere in the UK?
The bigger problem is if the UK has an extradition treaty with the country you live in.
How would that work? do you want to provide government id to watch porn?
And how is this helping since it's not going to work overall (other sites, torrents, etc)
Deleted Comment
The vague potential harm of sex doesn't justify the concrete harm of abolishing digital privacy. Further, it's just sex. Equating imagery of legal, natural activity with physical danger is an error.
It is blatantly dangerous to justify stripping citizens of their anonymity. The lawmakers who proposed this are oppressors. They are the danger to our children.
Come up with a better solution, provide a proof of concept and yes regulatory agencies / governments will take notice. People like us work in these agencies. Let's propose better ways of achieving the same goal of reducing porn exposure to minors - not keep bashing the initiative taken.
I think we would have a lot less of a pushback against such policing efforts if governments had done a better job at reigning in tracking on the internet from the start. "Porn websites should check your age" is not that radical, but in a world where it doesn't feel unrealistic that much of the information about you is correlated and processed in ways that are not in your personal best interest, then it becomes another loop in the proverbial noose that can be used to hang us all.
The real motivation behind this effort is not protecting children (the signal for that is all over the place), it’s about interrupting and conditioning society for a total surveillance state that controls or suppresses speech and thought. As always, the “think of the children” is just a typically cynical, narcissistic manipulation of people’s natural instincts to protect children.
Of course the underlying motivation is totalitarian. What, do you think they’re just going to come out and say “ok, peasants, we are not going to implement totalitarianism now”? No, they always sneak it in little by little, just as they always have, to the point that people still don’t understand what is going on in spite of things being as bad as they already are.
This is basically grooming, and no, the van does not have candy in it, kid.
If they actually cared about kids, they would have not banned and controlled adults from engaging in legal things freely, or they would have banned pornography as a clear societal ill. They could have also barred children from the open internet in general by allowing children only on a white/allow list; which is exponentially easier to implement, there is government justification, they are not full legal persons, and it can be enforced and penalized with existing child endangerment laws… you give access to a child, you are punished, just like if you, e.g., give children access to alcohol or any number of things.
What they choose to implement instead was that adults have to reveal their identity, essentially digital “show me your papers!”
The ruling class even constantly, openly talk about how they want everyone to have to provide their real identity on the internet to speak. They’re narcissists; all you have to do is listen to what they do and say to the audience they seek admiration from to see through the manipulation and lies directed towards you.
The dots are right next to each other and are labeled A and B. I am always a bit confused why so many people cannot, maybe don’t want to connect obvious dots; maybe because of what it means, not wanting to face reality because it causes discomfort in what they believe about things and themselves?
“I supported them and voted for them/this system. How could they be totalitarian? I would never vote for totalitarian control over myself, because I am smart and good. Therefore their intentions and motivations must be pure”. It’s a common abuse trap. It is also the underlying psychological manipulation mechanics of other cults and con artists, not just contemporary politicians.
While we can all see potential abuse (yelling FIRE in a crowded theater), surely the IRL abuse by governments is equally clear, with possibly a higher potential for damage.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/i...
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Weirdly, it might makes 'local' porn site like Dorcel who used to ask for credit cards for age verification (because of prior regulation not followed by mindgeek) more popular in the long run.