[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 25971)
File  []
>> No. 25971 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 1:28 pm
25971 spacer
UK plans age verification for porn websites from 2018


People in the UK will have to prove they are 18 before being allowed to access pornography websites from next year, the government is to announce.
Websites will be legally required to install age verification controls by April 2018 as part of a move to make the internet safer for children.
Users may be asked to provide credit card details, as gambling websites do.
Companies breaking the rules set out in the Digital Economy Act face being blocked by their internet provider.

VPNs at the ready, lads.
Expand all images.
>> No. 25972 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 1:32 pm
25972 spacer
Nice one. Because as we all know, nothing bad ever came from putting your credit card details into random into random sites on the web.

Proper job there.
>> No. 25973 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 1:57 pm
25973 spacer
>carries on using Tor


You can still eat my cock, government pigs.
>> No. 25974 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 3:29 pm
25974 spacer

4chan greentexting on my britfa?

Also good luck streaming pornhub over tor you utter bellend. Use a cheap russian VPN for your porn like the rest of us.
>> No. 25976 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 4:43 pm
25976 spacer
I predict this being about as effective as that PirateBay block only 100 times more annoying if you just want to have a wank to some vanilla pornography.

>Users may be asked to provide credit card details, as gambling websites do.

Gambling websites ask for bank details to access them?
>> No. 25977 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 5:45 pm
25977 spacer
It's more likely than you think.
>> No. 25982 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 8:09 pm
25982 spacer

I bet it's all the old bastards who have no idea how anything works. This arms race is getting stupid.
>> No. 25983 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 9:04 pm
25983 spacer
Since this is utter toss technically, I'm assuming that the proposed solution will be ID cards.
Fortunately, I have 20 years of carefully curated filth stashed, and it'll hopefully not be tagged to my NI, NHS and HMRC references.
>> No. 25984 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 9:16 pm
25984 spacer
It just took me a week to get EE to lift their smut filter so I could catch up on a few weeks of oglaf.
I'm assuming this is the same level of blocking that the government is thinking of, since there's no way in hell they'll get porn sites to validate according to HMG whims. Oh how I look forward to this. As above, VPNs ahoy!
>> No. 25987 Anonymous
17th July 2017
Monday 11:55 pm
25987 spacer
This is very true. They really don't have a fucking clue how the internet works, and let's not get started on their thoughts on encryption.
>> No. 25988 Anonymous
18th July 2017
Tuesday 10:02 am
25988 spacer
Here's some other shit
Guess we're all definitely on that list too.
>> No. 25989 Anonymous
18th July 2017
Tuesday 1:56 pm
25989 spacer
>Primarily funded by the US government, the Tor network
Wait what? I didn't know that. How counter-intuitive.
>> No. 25990 Anonymous
18th July 2017
Tuesday 2:24 pm
25990 spacer

What rock have you been living under? The original TOR was (and is) primarily a means for US undercover operatives working out of diplomatic missions to have plausible deniability when accessing US govt resources in general from abroad.

Obviously if you only have US 'diplomats' using the system the cat crawls its way out of the bag quite quickly, hence creating the public 'tor' project, pushing the privacy ideology, and inviting the worlds carpet-baggers journalists and human rights activists to use the system too.

It's one of the primary reasons to believe that, despite certain propaganda to the contrary, that tor really is quite fit for purpose provided that you're using it correctly.

Most people don't use it correctly, the tor browser bundle is by-default insecure (no doubt by request) and TAILS is a mess. But it *is* possible to use it quite securely for what it's designed to do - which is to give you anonymity, which is quite different to privacy.
>> No. 25992 Anonymous
18th July 2017
Tuesday 3:04 pm
25992 spacer
Yeah, I know what Tor is, but I didn't know it was funded by the US government. Why does that mean I live under a rock? It's not exactly something the general public are aware of, unlike, say, the Hulk Hogan-Gawker sex tape lawsuit.
>> No. 25993 Anonymous
18th July 2017
Tuesday 5:29 pm
25993 spacer
How to use it securely?
>> No. 25994 Anonymous
18th July 2017
Tuesday 6:05 pm
25994 spacer
>the tor browser bundle is by-default insecure (no doubt by request) and TAILS is a mess.
>> No. 25995 Anonymous
18th July 2017
Tuesday 9:38 pm
25995 spacer

It was my understanding that the NSA was going out of it's way to control the majority of the network so that it could track traffic (based on what Snowdon said a few years back). which isn't a problem when your goal is to secure your own diplomats communication and intercept everyone else’s.


>say, the Hulk Hogan-Gawker sex tape lawsuit.

I was nostalgically reading that thread the other day. Poor rocklad, I hope he found the self-assurance he needs.
>> No. 25996 Anonymous
18th July 2017
Tuesday 11:01 pm
25996 spacer
Your first point is entirely correct. TOR is a piece of shit, the exit node design is fundamentally weak. If you own the network, as you suggest the US (government) does, then statistically it is a little safer and certainly safer than an open internet (even protected by TLS, which is probably gone and too easy to MITM) but it isn't completely safe, at all.

Very much agree that that Firefox modules and things like TAILS are a nightmare.

There are easier ways to hide your activity on the internet. Unless you want to buy drugs from SR/AB/whoever the next one is.
>> No. 25997 Anonymous
19th July 2017
Wednesday 1:03 am
25997 spacer
>Very much agree that that Firefox modules and things like TAILS are a nightmare.

>There are easier ways to hide your activity on the internet.

So like >>25994 said, details?
>> No. 25999 Anonymous
19th July 2017
Wednesday 9:49 am
25999 spacer
Other thread got deleted for being duplicate. Here's some nightmare scenarios:

Most porn sites are run by scum, and they will charge the credit card one way or another betting that you will be too embarrassed to fight the charges. Will these new laws cause an increase in this behavior?

What is the exact definition of porn? How many innocent websites will be blocked in the name of this?

Porn sites will get your name when you verify your age so they will be able to tie every video you watch directly to your name, allowing them to build registers of what porn citizens watch.

Whats to stop this credit card information getting leaked or hacked?

Every time a law is passed regarding the internet or software in general people just say "I'll get around it." Nobody actually fights the passing of laws, they just try to avoid it. Clearly that can't go on forever.

How're they going to do it from technical aspect?
Censoring ISP name resolvers? HTTP injection? IP blacklist? TLS handshake inspection by ISP?

Also why is the state stepping to regulate something that can be solved by good parenting?
>> No. 26000 Anonymous
19th July 2017
Wednesday 10:20 am
26000 spacer
What about when I want to wank with my phone, and I just turn off the safe search on DuckDuckGo and type in something erotic or not, whatever you search with safety off you get porn and look at the images that turn up there? How do they stop that? Just mandated search engine censorship?
>> No. 26001 Anonymous
19th July 2017
Wednesday 11:23 am
26001 spacer
Don't think of it as censorship, think of it as a return to the golden age of finding porn in hedges and waiting hours for a single image to load.
>> No. 26004 Anonymous
19th July 2017
Wednesday 9:55 pm
26004 spacer
Been thinking further about this. Since there's no way that overseas porn peddlers are going to run age verification suitable for HMG, and there's nothing they can do about it - surely blocks are going to be applied at DNS or some other level.
Is there a market for a trusted porn portal? Offer UK-acceptable age verification, then bounce connections out into the free world(tm)? Like a VPN, but without having to set anything up on your endpoint?
I'm still trying to work out what to disguise it all as. Maybe an obscure imageboard that claims to have three users? Maybe an online chess forum?
This is all toss, of course, since I can't see the blocks being implemented - but is there any way to monetise horny simpletons? Seems like there should be.
>> No. 26007 Anonymous
20th July 2017
Thursday 1:56 pm
26007 spacer
>Every time a law is passed regarding the internet or software in general people just say "I'll get around it." Nobody actually fights the passing of laws, they just try to avoid it. Clearly that can't go on forever.
How would you suggest fighting it?
It has polled well somewhere, or they need it to satisfy the Daily Mail readers within the party.
It's also going to be really easy to belittle your opponent when you're defending this act.
>> No. 26008 Anonymous
20th July 2017
Thursday 2:24 pm
26008 spacer
It doesn't poll well. People have been fighting it, have you not noticed that every other year one of these thing has popped up for the last 20 or so? Every time it happens people petition and protest until it gets discarded then they reword it and put it forward again. They do this over and over until it gets through because people are tired or distracted and have lives to get on with. It's an undermining of democracy by attrition.
>> No. 26010 Anonymous
20th July 2017
Thursday 2:48 pm
26010 spacer
>It doesn't poll well.


>ICM Poll data: 2048 people were polled by ICM in July 2016. The data is weighted to the nationally representative profile of adults in Great Britain by gender, age and region. The poll was commissioned by the Centre for Gender Equal Media at Durham University.
>Participants were asked to respond to the following statement: ‘Pornography websites and social media companies should be legally required to prevent children accessing online pornography’. 86% of respondents agreed, with higher overall support from women (90%) than men (82%).
>Participants were also asked to respond to the following statement: ‘Websites that allow children to access pornography should be blocked by the Government.’ Overall, 78% of respondents agreed, with higher support from women (85%) then men (70%).
>> No. 26011 Anonymous
20th July 2017
Thursday 4:17 pm
26011 spacer
I'm sorry about this, but this has gotten right up my Jap's eye.


Patterson opens with nostalgic guff about how much better and less icky porn was back in her day, because of course pornographic models back then were all giggling nymphs, unlike todays models who are only doing it because of oppressed and full of self-loathing they must be. Despite the industry being better regulated by a long ways than it was in the 1970's when her mate was pinching filth mags from her brothers room.

The only thing approaching validity in the article is near the beginning when she talks about the "normalised culture of sexual harassment in schools”, but weirdly she doesn't actually attempt to show any evidence this is because of online porn, and simply plants it in between two other points that make it seem that way. Kind of like when people put bacon on burgers, even though it adds nothing whatsoever, only this is a lie being used to censor freedom of expression, and not a culinary preference of my own that literally doesn't matter. She also seems to ignore the idea that this is in any way a historical problem women and girls have faced for as long as bastards have had hands.

She waves away those grotesque vested interest like the sods over at Liberty, conjures Assange for no reason (or rather to further suggest porn made in the post-wank mag era is innately sexist), and fires off some odd rhetoric about the Tories being too shit to control men, but good enough to control tech-savvy fourteen year olds who mostly only exist to masturbate, which makes no sense. Then going on to complain about how Pornhub is popular, and that some people watch porn she doesn't like on there, again with no evidence this is leading to dangerous behaviour, just bemoaning it's existence because she finds it unpalatable.

Now, this is just ranty bollocks, and I'm sorry, but this is most egregious thing Patterson writes:

>When Tim Berners-Lee imagined “an open platform that would allow everyone, everywhere, to share information, access opportunities, and collaborate across geographic and cultural boundaries”, he probably didn’t dream of a wild west that would do us so much harm. We have laws to protect us from harm. Yes, those laws curb our freedom. And I can’t wait for the day when we’re all a little bit less free.

With no self-awareness, consideration for the facts, or logical coherency, she evokes Tim Berners-Lee, to demand less freedom, on the baseless assertion that we, as a society, are harming ourselves with our own sexual liberation. Such a crock of shit I could not imagine, but yet here it lies, creating visible stink lines to emit from my monitor.

There's an even more retarded piece linked halfway down that "article" by someone called Andrew Brown, but it's so absolutely fucked that I can't even begin to describe it all. In short; porn + Amazon Prime = Donald Trump's presidency.
>> No. 26012 Anonymous
20th July 2017
Thursday 4:43 pm
26012 spacer
To be honest, the invocation of TBL is outdated anyway. He has somehow come out in favour of standardising DRM with no safe harbour.
>> No. 26013 Anonymous
20th July 2017
Thursday 5:10 pm
26013 spacer


>> No. 26014 Anonymous
20th July 2017
Thursday 5:23 pm
26014 spacer

I will never understand this fetish.
>> No. 26016 Anonymous
20th July 2017
Thursday 5:45 pm
26016 spacer


British Chav, down 2?
>> No. 26026 Anonymous
21st July 2017
Friday 10:36 pm
26026 spacer
Meanwhile, across the pond, one Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, 70, has just celebrated a "dark market web place takedown". That's the sort of people that are running the show, and that is why we can't have nice things.
>> No. 26027 Anonymous
21st July 2017
Friday 11:57 pm
26027 spacer
Interesting chap.
>> No. 26028 Anonymous
22nd July 2017
Saturday 11:04 am
26028 spacer
So what happens to britfa.gs?

Given how purple hasn't even got around to implementing https yet, I can't see him setting up credit-card age verification. There is no way this site will be ignored by them - all it will take is a couple of reports from trolls to get us on the list. So I expect "adult content" (porn, discussion of sex, drugs, etc) will be banned from here.
>> No. 26029 Anonymous
22nd July 2017
Saturday 1:20 pm
26029 spacer
We're not hosted in the UK so I imagine nothing will change except you may have to use a proxy or VPN to access the site.
>> No. 26030 Anonymous
22nd July 2017
Saturday 1:30 pm
26030 spacer
It, and a million other sites shut down, porn is no longer normalised and kids are no longer traumatised. Unicorns, fluffy bunnies, and Theresa May's sex tape remains hidden.

Or VPNs abound, kids buy USB sticks full of filth from corner shops and pass it around.
Less technical pornhounds join my not-a-VPN redirector from >>26004 , hope I'm honourable and not logging their depravity for those nice YMCA chaps, and carry on with their pleasures.
I'm so looking forward to Tumblr, Facebook, Wikipedia, Youtube etc. all becoming unreachable because there's filth on them. The mental gymnastics needed to exempt them is going to be a joy to watch, after they collectively flip Theresa the bird.

Return ]

Delete Post []