PDA

View Full Version : Porn site age-check law demanded by media regulator



peteyt
28-03-2014, 05:32 PM
Just read a BBC news article claiming some are trying to get it so that it will be a legal requirement for all porn sites to need proof of ID before users can view its content to prove they are of legal age e.g. signing up with a valid credit/debit card.

Again more stupid regulations because parents can't teach and protect children on their own and so are now forcing others to do their own job. It also brings up the question, if the governments porn filters are as good and reliable as they'd like parents to believe, why would this be needed?

It obviously won't change anything either. If sites are forced to do this it will just lead to many going dark and hiding. Part of the problem is a lot of the people they are trying to apparently protect are far more technical than their parents, which means they will probably find a way around whatever the government throws at them but it will also mean sites will probably get damaged in the process.

In my opinion what we need is computer classes for parents as a way to get parents to understand at least the basics of computers, the dangers and good side it can bring so that parents can then use that knowledge and protect their own children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26779639

Rachel
28-03-2014, 06:04 PM
I do not have anything against this new law to be honest. This will actually stop young kids viewing porn especially if they are 18 and under....

The Don
28-03-2014, 06:27 PM
I do not have anything against this new law to be honest. This will actually stop young kids viewing porn especially if they are 18 and under....

That should be the parents job, not the states.

Rachel
28-03-2014, 06:28 PM
That should be the parents job, not the states.

Parents job yes and putting this law ain't a bad thing either....

xxMATTGxx
28-03-2014, 06:28 PM
If young kids are viewing porn then it's parents problem. They give them the access to the devices with the internet connection.

Aiden
28-03-2014, 06:29 PM
I do not have anything against this new law to be honest. This will actually stop young kids viewing porn especially if they are 18 and under....

You can't really stop under 18s from visiting most websites? Virgin blocks loads of illegal movie websites but I'm sure a few people have got passed it.

Rachel
28-03-2014, 06:30 PM
If young kids are viewing porn then it's parents problem. They give them the access to the devices with the internet connection.

If they do put this law then they cannot access it. It will be more efficient.

xxMATTGxx
28-03-2014, 06:30 PM
If they do put this law then they cannot access it. It will be more efficient.

There will be workarounds to this :P

The Don
28-03-2014, 06:31 PM
Parents job yes and putting this law ain't a bad thing either....

Putting through unnecessary laws which affects millions of people is absolutely a bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -


There will be workarounds to this :P

proxyserver etc etc

- - - Updated - - -


If they do put this law then they cannot access it. It will be more efficient.

Like people can't access the pirate bay??

Rachel
28-03-2014, 06:32 PM
There will be workarounds to this :P

Yeah maybe lol

Putting through unnecessary laws which affects millions of people is absolutely a bad thing.
- - - Updated - - -



proxyserver etc etc


People won't die if they did lol

Aiden
28-03-2014, 06:33 PM
People won't die if they did lol

They could die... you never know.

The Don
28-03-2014, 06:35 PM
Yeah maybe lol



People won't die if they did lol

Lol, what an excuse. Just because it won't kill people doesn't mean it's acceptable. If someone burned down your house whilst everybody was out would it not matter because "nobody died lol".

Rachel
28-03-2014, 06:38 PM
They could die... you never know.

It is called, get out and socialize...lol


Lol, what an excuse. Just because it won't kill people doesn't mean it's acceptable. If someone burned down your house whilst everybody was out would it not matter because "nobody died lol".


Um to be quite honest, if all the people are out the house it is the main thing. My house will be insured believe me :P Houses can be replaced you know.

Aiden
28-03-2014, 06:39 PM
It is called, get out and socialize...lol

Um to be quite honest, if all the people are out the house it is the main thing. My house will be insured believe me :P Houses can be replaced you know.

Yeah you're right, who cares all your belongings have gone and you will have to 'sleep around' for a few weeks lol.

Rachel
28-03-2014, 06:43 PM
Yeah you're right, who cares all your belongings have gone and you will have to 'sleep around' for a few weeks lol.

That is manageable really. I am sure you have someone you know who will help you out in things like this.

Anyways On topic: I am just saying this law won't be a bad thing. It may work or may not but you know how the government are now.... they will do everything in their power to stop this.

Aiden
28-03-2014, 06:44 PM
That is manageable really. I am sure you have someone you know who will help you out in things like this.

Anyways On topic: I am just saying this law won't be a bad thing. It may work or may not but you know how the government are now.... they will do everything in their power to stop this.

So you would rather your house burn down rather than nothing changing with the law and porn? :L

Rachel
28-03-2014, 06:47 PM
So you would rather your house burn down rather than nothing changing with the law and porn? :L

About Law for porn will be good really. I wouldn't care if they did or not I do not need porn.
As for my house, I care about peoples lives then my belongings really. A life cannot be replaced.

The Don
28-03-2014, 06:49 PM
You're missing the point entirely.


That is manageable really. I am sure you have someone you know who will help you out in things like this.

Anyways On topic: I am just saying this law won't be a bad thing. It may work or may not but you know how the government are now.... they will do everything in their power to stop this.

If the law won't be a bad thing then why would the government do everything in their power to stop it? Why are you in favour of the government fulfilling the role of parent?

FlyingJesus
28-03-2014, 06:49 PM
One rather important point is that this isn't ever going to actually happen - "article claiming some are trying to get it so that it will be a legal requirement". If I wrote a letter to the PM asking him to make it a legal requirement that fat people can't wear skirts or shorts it wouldn't mean that it's actually on the government agenda but this same article could be written

Kardan
28-03-2014, 06:51 PM
So do tumblr and reddit have to impose these new restrictions? Sounds like it to me.

The Don
28-03-2014, 06:51 PM
One rather important point is that this isn't ever going to actually happen - "article claiming some are trying to get it so that it will be a legal requirement". If I wrote a letter to the PM asking him to make it a legal requirement that fat people can't wear skirts or shorts it wouldn't mean that it's actually on the government agenda but this same article could be written

Of course :P It just amazes me that people seem to think it would be ok for a law like this to be put in place.

Rachel
28-03-2014, 06:51 PM
You're missing the point entirely. If the law won't be a bad thing then why would the government do everything in their power to stop it? Why are you in favour of the government fulfilling the role of parent?

Because you clearly see most of the parents doesn't do anything about it. Although there is a possible way to block it is by calling your service provider maybe and block the site.... but they will try to bypass it like they do at school. So with putting this law down, it might be better and more efficient. That's all I am saying :P

Just remember, doesn't mean this will be in place :P

scottish
28-03-2014, 07:11 PM
So basically read a page of crap from Zammy, nice.

Yeah this won't happen anyway haven't they tried to do stuff before with porn lol

peteyt
28-03-2014, 09:56 PM
Because you clearly see most of the parents doesn't do anything about it. Although there is a possible way to block it is by calling your service provider maybe and block the site.... but they will try to bypass it like they do at school. So with putting this law down, it might be better and more efficient. That's all I am saying :P

Just remember, doesn't mean this will be in place :P

Putting a law down means nothing. It is illegal to download copyrighted content e.g. music, films etc. and yet teens do it all the time and when they block sites like the pirate bay they just find workarounds e.g. proxies, VPN's etc.

If they did this for free services I wonder if it would mean it wouldn't come on a billing statement as no money would be given. If so there would be nothing stopping teens using parents cards just to pretend they where old enough.

But like a few have said I don't think this well ever happen. The porn filters currently being set up by the government and ISP's aren't going to well with a lot of important sexual health sites being mistaken for porn sites and blocked

GommeInc
28-03-2014, 11:47 PM
Entirely a problem with the parents. If they cannot control their children it is their fault. Also, has fake ID suddenly become a thing of the past? How will they enforce this law?

Rachel
29-03-2014, 01:31 AM
So basically read a page of crap from Zammy, nice.

Yeah this won't happen anyway haven't they tried to do stuff before with porn lol

Crap?? I'm just pointing out my point of view lol

Kyle
29-03-2014, 01:37 AM
allow parents to be sole regulators of child porn use / introduce more potential for privacy invasion and allow internet scam market to boom as a result of more people willingly(?) entering their credit card details online for things they don't actually pay for.

the former is the lesser of two evils as far as I'm concerned. if parents are worried that their children are watching porn, restrict them. If they don't care that their children are watching porn, then why should the state?

interestingly enough, this is something apparent in south korea where, due to excessive internet use and widespread problems of child gaming addiction, curfews are enforced and personal info (social security # as far as I remember) is required to log on after a certain time. this is in a culture where pro gamers make a lot of money and children neglect their studies to progress on ranking ladders. I wonder, XxZammyXx; what you think the harmful effects of pornography are and what measures you think can be put in place (aside from an all-out government ban/extremely invasive regulation) to reduce them.

Rachel
29-03-2014, 01:41 AM
allow parents to be sole regulators of child porn use / introduce more potential for privacy invasion and allow internet scam market to boom as a result of more people willingly(?) entering their credit card details online for things they don't actually pay for.

the former is the lesser of two evils as far as I'm concerned. if parents are worried that their children are watching porn, restrict them. If they don't care that their children are watching porn, then why should the state?

interestingly enough, this is something apparent in south korea where, due to excessive internet use and widespread problems of child gaming addiction, curfews are enforced and personal info (social security # as far as I remember) is required to log on after a certain time. this is in a culture where pro gamers make a lot of money and children neglect their studies to progress on ranking ladders. I wonder, @XxZammyXx (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=83201); what you think the harmful effects of pornography are and what measures you think can be put in place (aside from an all-out government ban/extremely invasive regulation) to reduce them.

Maybe contacting the service provider and tell them to ban all pornography out of reach. I am not even sure how they will do this but if they are planning to do so, then there is a way to block it. It is not harmful but just kids shouldn't watch that sort of thing anyways.

Kyle
29-03-2014, 01:43 AM
Maybe contacting the service provider and tell them to ban all pornography out of reach. I am not even sure how they will do this but if they are planning to do so, then there is a way to block it. It is not harmful but just kids shouldn't watch that sort of thing anyways.
contradictory, don't you think? by virtue of being harmless it causes no harm and thus needs no regulation?

Rachel
29-03-2014, 01:53 AM
contradictory, don't you think? by virtue of being harmless it causes no harm and thus needs no regulation?

I still think there should be something that they cannot access it but anyways .

Kyle
29-03-2014, 02:01 AM
I still think there should be something that they cannot access it but anyways .
but why? I'm not saying you're wrong by any means, I'm just wondering what your justification is. "cos dey shuldnt see it" has no weight when the question posed is 'WHY should they not see it?' especially when you seem so dead against it. just trying to get your reasoning.

GommeInc
29-03-2014, 11:21 AM
I still think there should be something that they cannot access it but anyways .
Loads of tools available to download or even on any standard OS - even supervision is perfectly adequate. The tools already exist to stop children from browsing porn. The only thing that needs to change are the parents and their belief that it is no longer their duty to look after their own children.

The only thing I feel pity over is that admittedly parents haven't got the foggiest clue what to do with internet security and where to get help. That said, in 2014 loads of people know what the internet is and should know how to use it. If they don't, why on earth have they got it in the first place?

-:Undertaker:-
29-03-2014, 08:16 PM
That should be the parents job, not the states.

You mean like you/others want the state to ban smoking on private property? (correct me if I am wrong)

As far as i'm concerned: ha ha ha to all those who want to ban smoking/limit freedoms. You reap what you sow.

Kardan
29-03-2014, 08:32 PM
You mean like you/others want the state to ban smoking on private property? (correct me if I am wrong)

As far as i'm concerned: ha ha ha to all those who want to ban smoking/limit freedoms. You reap what you sow.

But it's okay to limit the freedom of gay people getting married, am I right?

-:Undertaker:-
29-03-2014, 08:33 PM
But it's okay to limit the freedom of gay people getting married, am I right?

I'd actually get the state out of marriage which would de facto legalise gay marriage, even if I don't agree with it.

Nice try though.

myles
29-03-2014, 08:38 PM
good idea

peteyt
29-03-2014, 08:47 PM
Maybe contacting the service provider and tell them to ban all pornography out of reach. I am not even sure how they will do this but if they are planning to do so, then there is a way to block it. It is not harmful but just kids shouldn't watch that sort of thing anyways.

But they are already doing this in a sense - ISPs now annoyingly are being forced to roll out filters with people having to choose if they want them or not. As I've said however like any restriction it can easily be circumvented and the filters have actually been known to block important legal sites.

It reminds me of when I was at school. This was when MSN Messenger was in its popularity and people were always finding sites, services etc. to go online and chat at school. The school's IT department would keep blocking sites as pupils found them but others got found when these got blocked. It was a game of cat and mouse, but at least they monitored it themselves - that's the way forward as trying to create general filters for everyone just won't work.

The Don
30-03-2014, 02:08 AM
You mean like you/others want the state to ban smoking on private property? (correct me if I am wrong)

As far as i'm concerned: ha ha ha to all those who want to ban smoking/limit freedoms. You reap what you sow.

Yeh because me cracking one out in my bedroom really causes harm to others like smoking and needs to be restricted.

-:Undertaker:-
30-03-2014, 12:49 PM
Yeh because me cracking one out in my bedroom really causes harm to others like smoking and needs to be restricted.

One could make an argument that porn is dangerous to marriage/children and that we need to monitor the internet more anyway as it's dangerous for children/younger people with the amount of sleazy and weird men on the chatrooms etc. All of this of course is complete rubbish, as is the smoking argument you put forward - because as an adult, you have the choice whether to enter those private premises.

Don't like smoking? Don't enter land where it is permitted by the private owner.

Don't like porn? Don't watch it.

Again: hahaha. Watching you and others moan about a meddling state now with this issue (one which you happen to approve of) is delicious to watch.

The Don
30-03-2014, 12:55 PM
One could make an argument that porn is dangerous to marriage/children and that we need to monitor the internet more anyway as it's dangerous for children/younger people with the amount of sleazy and weird men on the chatrooms etc. All of this of course is complete rubbish, as is the smoking argument you put forward - because as an adult, you have the choice whether to enter those private premises.

Don't like smoking? Don't enter land where it is permitted by the private owner.

Don't like porn? Don't watch it.


No it's not the same and you're stupid if you can't comprehend the fact that smoking has measured damaging effects to the health of not only those smoking but also those around you. There is not such data or evidence for your example with porn (which is credible). This is the same as your gun vs knife argument where you're clearly unwilling to acknowledge the differences between the two situations and are merely seeing it as banning something without acknowledging the damage these things cause.


Again: ha ha ha. Watching you and others moan about a meddling state now with this issue (one which you happen to approve of) is delicious to watch.

You clearly think every issue is black and white and that there are no differing factors which gives people different opinions as to what should be regulated by the state.

xxMATTGxx
30-03-2014, 12:57 PM
If we put money on the amount of times Undertaker decides to bring "smoking" in anything to do with internet censorship we would be rich. :rolleyes:

GommeInc
30-03-2014, 01:23 PM
I wouldn't say his argument is entirely worthless :P I agree that pub owners should be able to allow smoking on/inside their property but as with everything proportionality is important - so both arguments for and against are a bit tedious. A mixture of all factors should be taken into consideration.

Perhaps make smoking in pubs a really niche market? Maybe make it banned in either:
a) places were food is served (gastro pubs, restaurants and bars)
b) where children are expected customers/family orientated public houses

Essentially make it so places that allow smoking are places where it's just to drink and smoke, which used to be the trend years ago and then the mighty gastro pub came into existence.

That said, I think smoking is an out of date habit that should be eradicated and is starkly different to whacking* one out to pornography into the early hours of the next day - it's free (who pays?), it's not really addictive unless you have an addictive personality, it doesn't damage your health and is arguably good for you and the only concerns are the costs to relationships although quite a lot of couples tend to get inspiration from it - so it depends on the relationship and people on a case by case basis. Smoking seems objectively bad (health, cost, external factors), while pornography is subjectively bad depending on your view.

* - maths debating is apparently filtered

Also: Pornography keeps the Kleenex/tissue and toilet tissue market afloat.

peteyt
30-03-2014, 03:02 PM
No it's not the same and you're stupid if you can't comprehend the fact that smoking has measured damaging effects to the health of not only those smoking but also those around you. There is not such data or evidence for your example with porn (which is credible). This is the same as your gun vs knife argument where you're clearly unwilling to acknowledge the differences between the two situations and are merely seeing it as banning something without acknowledging the damage these things cause.



You clearly think every issue is black and white and that there are no differing factors which gives people different opinions as to what should be regulated by the state.


One could make an argument that porn is dangerous to marriage/children and that we need to monitor the internet more anyway as it's dangerous for children/younger people with the amount of sleazy and weird men on the chatrooms etc. All of this of course is complete rubbish, as is the smoking argument you put forward - because as an adult, you have the choice whether to enter those private premises.

Don't like smoking? Don't enter land where it is permitted by the private owner.

Don't like porn? Don't watch it.

Again: hahaha. Watching you and others moan about a meddling state now with this issue (one which you happen to approve of) is delicious to watch.

While I do agree Smoking is more dangerous, at least passive smoking, I do think it should be up to the premises if people should smoke or not. A lot of pubs used to have designated smoking areas for this purpose, rather than trying to force them outside into the cold. It's like how some people prefer to smoke outside in their own house but some don't see it as a problem.

-:Undertaker:-
30-03-2014, 06:32 PM
No it's not the same and you're stupid if you can't comprehend the fact that smoking has measured damaging effects to the health of not only those smoking but also those around you. There is not such data or evidence for your example with porn (which is credible). This is the same as your gun vs knife argument where you're clearly unwilling to acknowledge the differences between the two situations and are merely seeing it as banning something without acknowledging the damage these things cause.

But what do you not understand about the concept of private property and using your own free will to decide whether something is good or not? You do not have to enter a private pub if you do not like the smoke - therefore, why do you want it banned? The only reason you want it banned is because you yourself do not like it and feel that you have the moral right to impose your feelings on everybody else using the power of the state. But the problem is, there are many millions of people who disagree with you on other things (internet monitoring, phone tapping, porn, drugs etc) who are willing to do exactly the same to you.

If I don't want you watching pornography for whatever reason - and i'm not making that argument - then you have no moral leg to stand on when you cry 'oh your taking away my freedoms just because you do not like it' when you've done exactly the same with smokers when it comes to pubs and bars. You made your bed, now lay down on it. And again I cannot say it enough: ha ha ha.


You clearly think every issue is black and white and that there are no differing factors which gives people different opinions as to what should be regulated by the state.

That's called having principles and not being a hypocrite.


If we put money on the amount of times Undertaker decides to bring "smoking" in anything to do with internet censorship we would be rich. :rolleyes:

I take great delight in taking internet freedumb!!1111!!!1 hypocrites to task when they cry about their freedoms being lost.

The Don
30-03-2014, 11:19 PM
Lol at you calling me a hypocrite when you were the one opposed to gay marriage. I'll reply in full when I'm home from work but you're trying to compare an argument about regulation whilst in the privacy of your own home to one about regulation in public places.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!