
UK plans age verification for porn websites from 2018 - scaryclam
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40628909
======
tici_88
This has probably very little to do with porn and is most likely the first
step in the UK's government attempt to track more closely who is accessing
what on the internet and even have the power to blacklist and make
inaccessible areas of the internet they deem inappropriate or inconvenient.

The enforceability of this is hugely questionable (they have heard of VPN
right?) and the societal benefit of less porn is also hard to quantify asaik.
Porn is not like hard drug use, cancer or drinking-and-driving where there is
a definite and significant cost to society in terms of measurable harm etc.

The UK has a lot of issues to address currently with Brexit looming, so
focusing on porn could also be a 'clever; political distraction from the
pending mess Brexit is shaping up to be.

~~~
secfirstmd
This is primarily a kneejerk political reaction by a shambles of a
Conservative party looking to be seen to be doing something on a "moral issue"
by its party members.

~~~
honestoHeminway
I always wondered, why socialistic idealism is frowned upon asa idiocy but
moralistic idealism is enshrined and a realizable utopia for conservatives.

~~~
chirau
Would you mind defining the two terms?

------
Nursie
Which will definitely, once and for all, stop teenagers looking at porn.

Definitely.

~~~
jaclaz
Well, that will depend on how exactly the way the customers "will have to
prove they are 18", as an example we know how no teenager under 18 would ever
tick a box near "Yes, I am 18 or older".

On the other hand needing to provide a photo or scanned image of your driving
license or passport AND give access to the web camera to the site to verify
your identity, while reasonably effective might _somehow_ produce as a side
effect a reduction of customers.

~~~
matthewmacleod
It's in the article - sites will be required to request credit card details.

~~~
xxs
Except they quote gambling and age verification there (UK) is not related to
credit cards.

~~~
matthewmacleod
I appreciate that, but various other reports do seem to indicate that credit
card details will be required. We'll have to see, though.

------
fredley
This is, of course, completely barmy regulation. The most interesting thing
will be the decision over what classifies as a porn website. Currently, as a
teenager, you're probably most likely to 'stumble across' (i.e. view
unintentionally) pornography on non-porn sites like Reddit or Tumblr. Will the
regulations require age verification for these sites? If not it will not even
begin to achieve its stated aims.

~~~
raesene6
AFAIK it's commercial sites only, so you're dead right this legislation has
failed before they even try and implement it.

~~~
toyg
Well, youporn is mostly free - is that considered "commercial"?

~~~
raesene6
I think the tube sites would be considered commercial 'cause they're run by
the commercial porn companies. What won't be covered as far as I'm aware is
things like reddit, tumblr etc

------
dalbasal
I would like to present to the court exhibit 1: The EU/ or UK "Cookie Laws"
AKA "ePrivacy directive."

In the months before and after its implementation there was a lot of
discussion around the (vast) grey areas in the laws. After some months, the
internet has coalesced on answers. All sites need to implement a nag screen
for unknown users, in order to get "informed consent". This consent will be
stored as a cookie and users should not delete cookies, or we will have to nag
you next time you visit. We will also create a cottage industry of
"compliance" specialists that will help you with the language of your nag
screens and TCs.

Websites got slightly more annoying. Two-bit consultants made some money. User
privacy was not improved in any way.Legislation regulating the internet is
tricky business.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
I've never heard a peep from anyone about the site I admin which still doesn't
have one of those cookie-naggers. Hopefully, when the UK leaves the EU, the
one good thing that might come out of it will be getting rid of that silly
legislation.

~~~
Freak_NL
If you're getting this kind of idiotic legislation in return, the net result
does not appear positive.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Don't get me wrong: the net result is _definitely_ not positive as far as I'm
concerned!

------
raesene6
This is an awful piece of legislation and will pretty inevitably produce
dangerous side effects whilst not in any way meeting its goals. It's a shame
to see this kind of uninformed law get introduced in a supposedly advanced
country.

It won't meet its aims as the targets (teenagers) are well aware of how to
geo-shift their access using Proxies and VPNs and also it doesn't (AFAIK)
cover non-commercial sites, so imgur, reddit etc don't count and they've got a
load of porn for anyone who spends more than about 5 seconds looking.

On the flip-side there are significant downsides here. One UK adults will need
to give their identifying details to commercial sites if they want access. In
some cases those adults will not want it publicly known that they use those
sites.

When they inevitably get hacked, we'll have an Ashley Madison style problem
again with the possibility for blackmail as a result.

Also I'd imagine even more sites will mirror the content of the commercial
porn sites and these less reputable sites have a rep. for hosting malware, so
we'll likely see more devices gettting infected...

So far from coverage I've seen on the "mainstream" UK media, none of these
issues gets a mention...

------
lb1lf
This, if enacted, will do more than any effort by the EFF or others to enhance
online privacy. VPN usage, TOR and bitcoin/ethereum acceptance online will
skyrocket.

After all, what the UK government is proposing is basically to learn its
citizens from an early age how to evade censorship by giving them a proper
incentive to figure out how to go under the radar.

~~~
westmeal
The funniest part is you're probably right. After all to most people it's what
the Internet is for.

------
thesehands
I'm expecting that the agency set up to police this will eventually be
enforcing a policy of only allowing internet access to users who have a
government assigned unique ID which will be tied to your entire online
activity. first they justify it for porn, then for terrorism

~~~
rayui
The plan is for the BBFC to police it, which is ridiculous.

------
matthewmacleod
This is obviously preposterous, and there is basically no chance of it lasting
or being significantly effective.

I am pretty curious though about what approach to safeguarding children might
be effective – or indeed, if research suggests that it's required. It does
seem reasonable that freely available pornography at a young age could have
substantial effects on sexual and social development; before slamming into
full-blown 'moral panic' mode, it might be good to know what those effects
are.

~~~
positivecomment
Anecdotal evidence (myself) suggests that those effects, if there is any at
all, would not be significant :)

I do wonder though, how do you scientifically analyse that? Ask people if they
were exposed to porn as a kid to pick your evaluation candidates? That'd be
unreliable. Expose some underage people to porn (horrible) and evaluate them
after tens of years? I don't think so...

------
paperpunk
I worry this will just funnel kids onto the kinds of porn web-sites that are
unlikely to follow government regulations anyway, as they might have more
damaging content.

Are there any cases where something like this has been rolled out elsewhere
where the effects can be looked at?

~~~
onion2k
Alternatively they'll (continue to) go to Reddit, Instagram, Facebook, etc -
the sort of sites that this law will have no impact on.

~~~
vortico
Now that you mention it, pretty much every website with user content has porn
on it. So this regulation will either ban those as well, or cause people
watching "professional Hollywood porn" to instead watch user-generated porn,
which doesn't solve the problem the regulation is trying to solve at all.

As a small website owner (not a porn website owner though), I really don't
care if a country blocks my website because of silly censorship laws. Sure, it
hurts finances a bit, but if a government truly represents the people (yeah
right), then the people don't want to see my website anyway, right?! I wonder
if larger websites like Reddit, forum boards, and file hosting sites will
follow this same attitude.

------
avh02
>Mr Hancock said: "All this means that while we can enjoy the freedom of the
web, the UK will have the most robust internet child protection measures of
any country in the world."

This had me chuckling - I grew up in the Gulf region - they have the "nobody
gets access" policy - way more robust.

~~~
positivecomment
Yeah, also the same for Turkey under the dictatorship of Erdoğan. Internet
there is amazingly robust. They also iterate among beautiful blocked page
designs for artistic freedom:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=eri%C5%9Fim+engellenmi%C5%9F...](https://www.google.com/search?q=eri%C5%9Fim+engellenmi%C5%9Ftir&tbm=isch)

Back when this craziness started, they had even blocked the sites giving STI
information because they had "sex" in them. Not sure how it is right now.

The promotion in any form for alcoholic beverages are banned too. This is the
web site for the biggest beer maker:
[http://efespilsen.com.tr/](http://efespilsen.com.tr/) (It says basically that
according to a change in regulation, they aren't allowed to have a customer-
facing website anymore).

------
ianopolous
I look forward to all teenagers learning what a vpn is and how to use one.

~~~
raesene6
or just going to non-commercial sites for their porn...

~~~
ianopolous
They are targeting all porn sites, commercial or not.

~~~
raesene6
I don't think they are. From
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40630582](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40630582)

"This, she explained, was because the Act does not tackle the fact that
services including Twitter and Tumblr contain hardcore pornography but will
not be required to introduce age-checks. "

It's only commercial porn sites that are being targeted. Sites that happen to
host pornographic content (e.g. tumblr, reddit etc) aren't included

~~~
ianopolous
I stopped reading the BBC 4 years ago because of their biased coverage. Here's
a reputable source to my statement:
[https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/nov/25/what-how-
and...](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/nov/25/what-how-and-why-the-
uks-new-online-porn-restrictions-explained)

The relevant section, "a sentence was slipped in that gives a regulator powers
to act against sites “making prohibited material available on the internet to
persons in the United Kingdom”" \- That means any website hosting said
content, whether they accept money or not.

~~~
raesene6
yeah I think that article's a little old and doesn't reflect the actuality of
what was placed in .

From the lords debate on the topic
[https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2017-02-02/debates/D2C24...](https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2017-02-02/debates/D2C2419A-449B-4388-993A-149517F9CD2E/DigitalEconomyBill)

"However, I want to mention briefly user-generated material on social media,
an issue that naturally arises in debating this Bill if we are told that it
will not cover it, despite a vast amount of hardcore porn that can easily be
viewed by anyone, including young children, being just a couple of clicks
away. "

They mention tumblr/facebook being included but only when showing
"commcercial" material, which appears to be the differentiating factor so
sites like reddit wouldn't be generally in-scope.

~~~
ianopolous
I stand corrected. Thank you. The next question is, "What is social media?".
What about sites where the content is user generated but those users are
compensated in tokens which are exchangeable for real money? Is that
commercial or social?

~~~
raesene6
indeed, one of the many grey areas that will be "interesting" for the new
regulator to look at when they're created...

------
INTPenis
The answer is to educate teens in school and at home. To put a big lock on
porn sites will not help and it's not even feasible to completely shelter them
from that topic.

------
DropbearRob
Won't someone please think of the children!!

How about this for how to enforce parental controls... Encourage parents to
supervise their childrens internet usage and educate the parents how to set up
pfsense to control their own home.

I know its not for everyone, however we also have to ask the question, just
how big is the problem of internet porn for society when viewed by minors? I
don't have kids and haven't seen any studies, so honestly I just don't know.

Surely there are ways that you can educate, inform your kids, and maybe
prepare them for what access to an unregulated stream of all of humanities
information could contain.

------
RobertoG
Is this really addressed to minors? Because making identification mandatory is
going to affect everybody behaviour.

It also makes a perfect excuse to control what is accessible and that could be
expanded to other kinds content.

Also, it's frequently the case (I can't think of exceptions) that the people
in power always try to control the sexual behaviour of others. I would like to
know the reason for politic and religious authorities to be so obsessed with
sex.

In other gregarious species, who can reproduce is decided by the high status
individuals. Maybe is related to that.

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
I understand this is unpopular on HN and I don't think this is the right
approach either but what is the solution? Or do you think there's no problem
at all? I think it is a potential problem where some young people don't
realize that some fairly disgusting and extreme sex acts are not the norm and
start dating thinking that is what you do instead of loving someone, that
would cause them serious issues in developing relationships.

~~~
manmal
My wife studied psychology recently, and yes, it's a huge problem. There
really are teenagers who think that gang bangs are the norm, and that they
have to participate. I thought she was joking when my wife told me some of the
stories (case studies actually), but these things really happen if you get
exposed to this when really young, and nobody bothers to correct your views.

~~~
wvh
But this is not pornography-specific. This applies just as well to views about
healthy relationships, self respect, food consumption, alcohol and drug use,
financial discipline, world views and whatnot. Teens need to be educated so
they can form an informed and nuanced view of the world. Not sure you should
ban all teens from McDonalds because some parents can't get the message across
that fast-food is unhealthy.

In other words, is the main problem here that gangbang videos exist or that
some kids get a really shitty upbringing that leaves them full of gaping
holes, incapable of handling life or making wise decisions?

The point I'm trying to make is that people are shifting the responsibility
and consequently limiting freedom and varied views for all, like the ban on
"gay propaganda" in Russia or "facesitting" pornography in the UK. It's the
wrong solution to a (I assume for some) real problem.

~~~
manmal
It's a really hard topic to navigate; on the one hand you don't want your 12yo
daughter to watch disgusting and mostly misogynic videos, and on the other
hand you have freedom of speech and net neutrality. The thing is: Do I have to
tell my kids at age 8 that fisting/gang rapes/... are not how you really do
it, and tell them what it's really all about? Or should I wait until age 11?
Or will they come asking (I doubt it)? What if their friends already showed
them at age 6 at school, is the damage already done then?

And yeah, 6yo do have access to porn if they can read/write by then.

------
davidpardo
When I was a teenager there always were a few used mags that we swapped or
gave each other. If kids have smartphones, they'll resort to video sharing,
and there are few ways to avoid it.

I'm not sure that's a good way to spend the taxpayer money.

------
jchw
They might as well call it Operation Could-Not-Possibly-Go-Wrong.

>Companies breaking the rules set out in the Digital Economy Act face being
blocked by their internet provider.

Seems to imply it would be the burden of individual sites. I'm sure many of
which already have low margins since advertising in this space is extremely
hard. So I'm going to guess most of them would sooner IP block all of Europe
before bothering with this.

~~~
Zak
A company operating outside the UK's jurisdiction wouldn't be affected at all
from my reading of that. The UK could direct UK ISPs to block noncompliant
sites entirely, but then they're in the position of trying to enumerate every
site in the world that hosts porn.

Good luck with that.

~~~
jchw
>but then they're in the position of trying to enumerate every site in the
world that hosts porn

HAH.

No problem. I have a succinct filter that covers most of them:

    
    
        0.0.0.0/0
    

...The only real flaw is that it doesn't cover IPv6.

------
throw2016
Some parents will always find the appeal of the nanny state irresistible but
it's an extraordinarily self serving desire the exists outside the concept of
freedom and democracy and like all utopian solutions sound good in practice
but doesn't work in the real world.

How many things is the state going to control? How many moles are you going to
whack? Most networks are able to keep out pornography quite easily with
consequences for those who seek to work around. This is an opportunity for
those can can secure networks and provide products and services to parents.

The parent is in control to place constraints they see fit and parent, rather
than seeking state intervention and empowering those who seek control and
power. A nanny state built on 'saving children' is never about saving children
but feeding on the vulnerable and self righteous sections of society to
concentrate power.

There are always those in power who will latch on any excuse they can find and
like always they remain the biggest threat to not just children but everyone
in a free society.

------
kalekold
What about torture or murder? and I'd also argue many news sites should be 18+
too. So you're gonna need age verification to watch people engaging in a
natural sexual act but if you want to see the Zeta's hacking off a rival's
head with a chainsaw, go right ahead. Madness!

------
manarth
Thankfully there's absolutely no porn on peer-to-peer services.

------
andmarios
Ah, as usual, why solve something with education when you can solve it via
forcing anyone who wants to watch porn to give their credit card details to a
shady xxx website.

------
vortico
Great idea, teens will just switch to Tor to get _extremely unlimited_ genres
of porn.

------
averagewall
This sounds silly, but the existing situation is also silly. Kids aren't
allowed to go to pornographic movies in cinemas. What's the point of those
restrictions, which people have been happy with for probably 100 years, when
they are allowed to do all that online?

It sounds like the law should be harmonized one way or another - open
everything up or close everything down, otherwise it's pointless.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
I'm not sure that analogy holds; the Internet is just such a different thing
from cinemas. Still, I'm sure no-one actually has a problem with the concept
of preventing under-18s from watching porn online, it's the implementation
that's the tricky bit. For example, no-one has a problem with cinema
restrictions, but they might do if you had to hand over credit card details to
watch a film, and if it were still trivially easy for under-18s to sneak into
the cinema.

~~~
yorwba
> Still, I'm sure no-one actually has a problem with the concept of preventing
> under-18s from watching porn online

I'm sure lots of under-18s would have a problem with that. The vast majority
is unlikely to _accidentally_ end up on a porn site.

------
revelation
Where is all this anti porn stuff coming from in the UK? I thought as a
civilization as a whole we were moving away from that medieval thinking.

~~~
pmlnr
This is the question I've been asking as well, especially since London and the
Soho exists.

~~~
jonathanstrange
This is probably the aftershock of the Jimmy Savile scandal plus various child
sex scandals involving catholic priests, etc. UK politicians feel obliged to
protect the children but at the same time are reluctant to address the real
systemic issues - none of the many abuse scandals had anything specific to do
with the Internet, of course. The real crimes are enabled by bigotry and
awkward silence, not by anything on the Internet. Who knows, maybe those
politicians who are suppressed perverts or pedophiles themselves cry out the
loudest.

------
noufalibrahim
This sounds like yet another solution that can be easily bypassed by the
typical technically proficient teenager with raging hormones.

I recently read an article about how easy access to an almost unlimited amount
of pornography is giving boys unrealistic sexual expectations and placing
unreasonable demands on girls. I can't find the link to the article right now
but from this and several others that I've read, this is a real problem.
Issues like personal freedom, consent and others are all true. However, the
typical website has a vested interest in making sure that it's offerings reach
a large audience and I'm sure they're not beyond pushing the envelope a little
to make that happen.

What is a solution?

~~~
amelius
There's a website and community dedicated to that problem, [1], and they cite
numerous articles of the kind you mentioned. Quoting:

> To date every study offers support for the porn addiction model (no studies
> falsify the porn addiction model). The results of these 34 neurological
> studies (and upcoming studies) are consistent with 220+ Internet addiction
> "brain studies", many of which also include internet porn use. All support
> the premise that internet porn use can cause addiction-related brain changes

[1] [http://www.yourbrainonporn.com](http://www.yourbrainonporn.com)

------
jonathanstrange
How will this work with image search in Google, Bing, Yandex, etc.? Last time
I checked you only need to enter an explicit search term and uncheck the
filter, and you're flooded in porn.

Will they be forced to make their filters mandatory if the IP number looks as
if it comes from the UK?

How will this work with porn sites outside the UK (such as most of them)? Will
they all be blocked by default on the basis of some UK government censorship
list or authority?

~~~
jchw
It seems like governments have decided that if you're on the Internet, you
effectively have to follow the intersection of all laws from all countries
that are also on the Internet.

I think looking at IP ranges is pretty effective actually. Google already does
send people to different regional sites based on where they're coming from.

------
have_faith
I agree with most here, it's a wasted effort and mostly the start of a
slippery slope towards future policies.

But to the problem it purports to solve, underage kids viewing material that
they shouldn't be viewing, what do you propose as a workable solution? I don't
mean a 15 year old occasionally viewing a normal porn video, porn sites these
days house all sorts of things you wouldn't want your kids to stumble across.

------
patrickaljord
Funny that the British conservative party that came up with the term "Nanny
State" is literally behaving like a nanny now.

~~~
kristopolous
the political claims have always been silly. They support small tiny
government except for the big expansive military. They want big government out
of people's lives except for what they consume and do in the bedroom.

~~~
vacri
People shouldn't be doing perverted stuff in the bedroom, y'see. It should be
in the invitation-only high-class clubs!

------
jimparkins
The key part of this is whole thing is the mechanism of enforcement - at the
ISP. To do this UK ISPs will need increased government controlled
infrastructure operating within their ISP core networks. This to me sounds
like post Brexit GCHQ wants to significantly increase the amount of access and
control it has to all UK web browsing traffic...

------
bluedino
This is the same country where you have to buy a television stamp isn't it?

~~~
Quarrelsome
yeah but that bit is cool cause the publicly funded BBC outputs good content
with zero ads.

~~~
DropbearRob
Australia has ad free tv too, and radio stations and all the same kinds of
initiatives as the BBC (admittedly the tv is terrible by comparison to the BBC
so) called the ABC.

there are no TV licenses in Australia though.. its just included in your tax
which is how it should be here in the UK. Paying people to police the TV
license is absolutely retarded

~~~
vacri
The ABC is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay underfunded compared to the BBC. And conservative
governments hate it and throttle it wherever they can. Despite being shown
time and time again to be even-handed by both internal and external reviews,
the conservatives treat it as a mouthpiece of the progressives.

------
werber
Maybe this will help stop young people from accidentally stumbling into XXX
content, but it seems to me like it would be a push into darker corners of the
web for those that are actively seeking it out.

------
petraeus
Its a red herring used by the government to build a stronger surveillance
state.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

------
eb0la
Regulation, no matter what you think about it, is and will always be a great
source of business opportunities.

Hard to implement? Business opportunities (aka money) don't come freely ;-)

------
geff82
Uk guys, I will offer you private VPN access for a small fee :)

------
olegkikin
They are having troubles blocking ThePirateBay. Good luck blocking ALL porn
websites that don't implement this nonsense.

------
kwhitefoot
> which doesn't solve the problem the regulation is trying to solve at all

What problem is it, really?

------
romanovcode
I see they take after Russia.

------
SirHound
Certainly one way to raise a savvy digital generation.

~~~
okket
In a weird way it may be a good thing to teach our offspring how to deal with
and work around censorship on a small, non-political scale. Also, this topic
assures they learn the lesson thoroughly, both because a lot of self-interest
(unlike with 'boring' politics) and because of the obvious stupidity of this
censorship.

------
falcor84
>online pornography ... had been seen by 65% of 15-16 year olds and 48% of
11-16 year olds.

I don't think percentages work the way you think they work.

