No. 17145Anonymous 31st December 2018 Monday 3:36 pm17145Porn sites ‘will all require proof of age from April 2019
> Masturbation is about to get a lot more complicated from April next year – with porn sites requiring proof of age before anyone can see adult content (including free sites).
> Rules for how the ban on under-18s will work were quietly passed by the House of Commons on Monday this week – and are expected to be in place by April.
> From that date, anyone who visits a porn site from a British IP address will be asked for ‘proof’ they are 18, provided either from ID such as driving licences or from age verification cards bought in shops.
>>17145 >‘You will be able to go to our site and register your devices in advance of the law,’ Lawley says, ‘So consumers won’t have to put their mouse down, so to speak.’
He knows his audience well.
>>17149 When they got their "blank cheque" meta-injunction against the major ISPs. Granted, you're not prevented entirely from getting to those places, but it does take a bit of effort and you need more condoms than usual because half the proxies have malverts and clickjacks.
Sounds like a back-door way to block every chansite considering they all host pornography. That includes .gs with its porn boards.
>Age verification services will offer ‘tokens’ proving that people are over 18 will be stored in internet browsers, allowing users to log in to sites (once they’ve proved they’re 18 and registered with an age verification system).
What kind of absolute daredevil browses porn outside of a private tab. This is starting sounding like a massive ballache where I have the choice to keep popping down to the cornershop to buy pervert-cards or hand over my card details to a porn website.
Can I just route through google DNS like you do with ISP porn blocks?
Is porndumplad still with us? I mainly use /sfw/ these days so I only really visit /x/ on the rare occasion I feel like bashing one out to the OP image of the hairy girls thread. He used to be like clockwork.
>>17152 The law applies to pornography supplied on a commercial basis, so no, it doesn't include us.
>we can allow you to create a retained key by setting a ‘Password’ and 4-digit ‘PIN’ which can be re- entered whenever you open the incognito browser.
>Can I just route through google DNS like you do with ISP porn blocks?
With reputable sites following the law, no. With sites blocked for failing to comply, potentially.
>>17155 I'm not really into hairy women. There's just something about the way she's got her knickers pulled down a bit to reveal her nether regions and the look on her face in the picture that causes a stirring in my loins.
>>17156 >With reputable sites following the law, no. With sites blocked for failing to comply, potentially.
FWIW, this doesn't work with the major ISPs. They do DPI so will intercept the HTTP request and respond to it, though hilariously if you make the request using TLS they'll utterly confuse your browser by responding in the clear. This is because the hostname you request has to be sent in the clear.
Of course, it could be worse. When you're on something like hotel wifi, they intercept DNS and spoof the IP address so that your networking stack thinks it's received a response from Google (or wherever).
>>17160 He's saying that even with an alternative DNS, your browser still sends the hostname as part of the request (so that one webserver can host multiple websites on one IP address), and this is sent in the clear even on HTTPS, so ISPs can still check it and block it.
>>17156 >>17159 >>17161 Changing to google DNS worked with the adult block from Sky at my parents house so that's why I was asking. Oh well, VPN is a couple a quid a month so I guess that is just something I have to pay for now.
>>17161 That's correct, though you having said that maybe suggests a proper explanation might be needed.
You want to go visit "shedtube.xxx" for all your shed-loving needs. You don't know where that is, so you ask Google for directions (8.8.8.8 DNS). It tells you "Oh, shedtube.xxx is over there, on 10.11.12.13", so off you go.
You then connect to 10.11.12.13 and say "I want shedtube.xxx please" (HTTP GET), and the server at the other end says "Here you go" (HTTP 200).
But someone approaches your ISP, be it Ground, ListenListen, Nothing Anywhere, or whoever, and says "Sorry, we need you to stop people from getting to shedtube.xxx because it's been taken over by hackers on toast", so next time you try and visit, your ISP grabs that request and stops it getting to 10.11.12.13 and instead responds itself "Sorry, you're not allowed to see this".
So you try using a code to hide your request (HTTP over TLS - "HTTPS"), but the server at 10.11.12.13 has lots of different sites, all with their own keys. So just like the concierge in an apartment complex or an office building, the server needs to know which site you're after, so your coded message is tagged with an address label "shedtube.xxx, 10.11.12.13, The Internet". Your ISP can still read this, but it's got no way of seeing what the coded message was, nor do they have any way of knowing what the key is, so the response comes back saying "SO RR YY OUREN OTALL OWEDT OSEET HISXX" and you get confused because it won't decode properly. This isn't entirely a joke. Both Sky and Virgin respond to HTTPS requests for blocked sites by sending their "Site not available" page unencrypted.
In hotels and the like, people discovered that you could use DNS to route real traffic, so they started intercepting the DNS requests. When you ask "Hey Google, where's shedtube.xxx?" it comes back with "Hello Mr Internet Person, we are definitely Google and not Shady Hotel Wifi Service, and shedtube.xxx is totally on 10.20.30.40".
The only real solution to that would be to use a VPN tunnel with an endpoint somewhere else. Think of this as like a pneumatic tube. You put the message into a capsule at your end, and someone takes it out of the capsule at the other end, but all your ISP sees is a capsule. They can't see what's in it, and they can't interfere with it. The main drawback here is that you do need to be able to trust whoever's at the far end of the tube not to fuck with your messages, so invariably this means paying out money.
>>17162 That was the voluntary content filter. This is going to be a mandatory filter with legal sanctions to back it up, so it's almost certainly going to act like the piracy filters.
As usual, the ones to watch are going to be A&A. They responded to the urge to add content filters with "yeah, no, fuck off", and their response to the anti-piracy crowd was "we're not named in the injunction so we don't have to obey it".
You should definitely not use Private Internet Access to get an app to make you look like you're in France so you can have a Liberty wank every now and then.
>The only real solution to that would be to use a VPN tunnel with an endpoint somewhere else.
Except hotels can block VPN. And many of them do. And apparently they can also block SmartDNS. When I was on holiday last year, I tried to access a few shows on the BBC iPlayer via the hotel's free wi-fi, first by using VPN, which didn't work, and then by using SmartDNS, which also didn't work. I didn't want to ask the hotel staff if they had deliberately disabled VPN and SmartDNS because they may have thought I was doing shady things with my computer, but it had to be the hotel wi-fi's fault, as my laptop can normally dial into a VPN just fine when I am abroad.
>>17160 DPI is exactly what it says on the tin: deep packet inspection. Consider it as a sort of security checkpoint: the simple one looks over you, perhaps devolves to a bit of snogging. The deep one would stuff their hands up your arse.
>>17167 >Except hotels can block VPN.
They can block any service on a known port or a known address. A properly-configured OpenVPN setup with arbitrary port and address will get through just about anything as long as there's a route available. Don't expect to be able to reach the likes of PIA or Nord.
>And apparently they can also block SmartDNS.
They intercept DNS to prevent you from using alternative nameservers. The only way you're going to get that to work is to tunnel out, at which point you might as well not bother.
>with porn sites requiring proof of age before anyone can see adult content (including free sites).
Wonder how they are going to pull that off on all the sites that are either free (and not owned by Youporn) or which mainly offer pirated content. You know, some tube or gallery page that's hosted in some shithole country with lax copyright laws and whatnot and which is difficult to just shut down.
And the question is how far the ISPs will then go with the blocking of those sites that won't comply.
The only surefire way to keep people from accessing porn without age verification will pretty much be the whitelisting of all Internet porn. Which IMO is kind of excessive just to keep youngsters from watching the stuff, who will no doubt figure out ways around it anyway.
>>17172 >Wonder how they are going to pull that off on all the sites that are either free (and not owned by Youporn) or which mainly offer pirated content. You know, some tube or gallery page that's hosted in some shithole country with lax copyright laws and whatnot and which is difficult to just shut down.
Presumably it'll work the same as the magic injunction the studios currently have against the ISPs. Someone (BBFC?) sends them a URL of a site that hasn't responded, and they'll have to block it.
> Someone (BBFC?) sends them a URL of a site that hasn't responded, and they'll have to block it.
I'm not sure that a request from one single country will cause a site like that to turn its whole business model on its head and suddenly ask age verification for the pirated content that it offers. They will probably just go on like before and not worry too much about the loss of a few British users on their site.
>>17174 I don't see why you think that makes any difference. They'll be blocked at the ISP level, with the force of law behind it. You won't be accessing them without some degree of effort.
Like I said, those sites aren't going to start asking for age verification, and they will just write off their British user base, who will be blocked via ISP blocking.
But you should be alright using a VPN. Unless they do deep packet inspection.
A VPN will be fine even if they're doing DPI - if they know how to break IPsec or TLS, they certainly wouldn't waste that advantage just to block some porn sites.
China is operating a massive and incredibly sophisticated censorship system. They are highly politically motivated to control every aspect of public debate and restrict access to unflattering information. As far as the CPC are concerned, the internet poses an existential threat to the Chinese state.
This porn restriction is a half-arsed effort to appease Daily Mail readers. Our government don't really know what they're doing, which is why the whole process has been orchestrated by MindGeek. It's essentially a massive land-grab by the world's largest porn publisher in the world's second-largest market for online porn. The age verification system will make it much more inconvenient for technically illiterate users to access free porn; if you dominate the porn market, that could prove to be ludicrously profitable.
I think that in practice, it will be exceedingly easy to bypass these restrictions. ISPs will be highly motivated to use the laziest and most half-arsed blocking technology for cost reasons, and because no ISP wants to be known as "the one that does a really good job of blocking porn". The government haven't specified how that blocking should be done and lack the technical resources and the political motivation to impose rigorous blocks. You might have some difficulties accessing the major tube sites, but I expect that porn will be just as easy to access as pirate movies are today - modestly difficult if you're a total fuckwit, but trivial if you can use Google and have a speck of patience.
>>17197 >ISPs will be highly motivated to use the laziest and most half-arsed blocking technology for cost reasons
There will be substantial penalties for failing to block. They'll almost certainly use the same system they already use to comply with the piracy injunctions because it already exists and "works".
>>17201 Parents of young children, people from socially conservative religions, schools, colleges, public libraries... Is it really so hard for you to imagine the existence of people who aren't single male twenty-somethings that value their freedom to watch hardcore porn at the drop of a hat?
Almost all public places are already forced to put parental locks on their net to keep random blokes from watching porn in public. Some people have no shame or self control.
>>17207 Seriously, am I being trolled or just butting heads with a genuine dimwit? I take it you don't have any friends with young children. In your mind, how do these hypothetical conversations go? "Sweetheart, I know we don't want to expose our children to hardcore pornography and both have our deeply-held ethical concerns about it in general, but we're both massive hypocrites and everyone loves porn anyway (deal with it) so let's not go for the company that offers extra safeguards from it, eh?"
I know lots of people with young children. They still want to see porn, so they just use the very effective and popular filtering software (or ISP level services) to block anything for their kid.
Do you really think that once you pop out a sprog you no longer want the ability to access adult content for yourself? "Now that you're pregnant, love, we'd better look into that new internet that only lets us read the news or go on the Cbeebies website, that seems like a good way to spend our money"
>>17209 This. Some people prefer to actually take responsibility for this stuff rather than just farm it out to someone else. A simple filtering proxy isn't that hard to set up. The age verification measures really aren't necessary. The solution isn't nasty warning messages, it's parents having a conversation with their children.
>>17209 So your argument is that, based on the anecdotal evidence of your friends with young children who enjoy watching porn, and that despite the existence of a widespread desire to restrict improper access to pornography, there is absolutely no potential market for an ISP that offers comparatively robust blocks for it?
I really don't think you've considered this. The .gs userbase is probably so fond of porn in general, and so hostile to these sorts of measures, that you've become convinced no-one else could possibly approve of or want them either. The demand is there, whether you like these people or not.
>So your argument is that, based on the anecdotal evidence of your friends
Mate, you can't come at me with "I take it you don't have any friends with young children" and then immediately criticise me for saying that I do - what's wrong with you?
Anyway, I'll try again with some block capitals. The point I've been making all along is that robust blocks for porn ALREADY EXIST and work VERY WELL, and that nobody would want an ISP that is known for taking control away from the customer and blocking everything they deem fit. People want to BE ABLE to block content, they do not want MANDATORY PERMANENT CONTENT BLOCKING. While a business or school might want permanent blocking, why give up the control they already have using their own filtering software, and allow their ISP to control all of that?
Do you want to buy a padlock that has a key, or one that a bloke from the Padlock Factory decides when and where to open? Which is more appealing to the average consumer?
Every major ISP already offers porn filtering. Either it's on by default, or you can choose to turn it on when you're setting up your WiFi router.
The mandatory age verification filtering that's about to come into force can't be turned off. You can't say "I'll have the filtering on the kids computers, but not on mine". You can't say "I'll have the filtering on until midnight, but after that it's daddy's private time". It's on all the time on every ISP. Either you hand over your credit card, trot down to your local shop for a government-approved Masturbation License or you'll have to twat about with VPNs.
What proportion of people definitely don't want any filtering ever? What proportion of people want some filtering, but only what they choose? What proportion say they want filtering, but secretly like to have a tug to Anal Acrobats when the wife is asleep? What proportion don't really watch porn, but don't like the idea of being told what they can and can't see? What proportion definitely want porn blocked 100% of the time, but aren't satisfied to just click the little box that says "please filter my porn" when they setup their broadband? Only the last of those groups stands to benefit from rigorously-enforced age verification filtering.
There are 205 ISPs in the UK. You could set up a puritanical broadband company that offers absolutely no porn under any circumstances with a remarkably modest investment. Nobody currently offers puritanical broadband, presumably because there's insufficient demand - if you want filtering, you can have it from any of the major ISPs.
Five ISPs control 95% of the UK market - BT (who own PlusNet and run the fixed-line service for EE), Sky, Virgin, TalkTalk and Vodafone. Of those big five, who would decide to deliberately alienate a large proportion of their customer base to appease a small minority?
They're already engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with court-ordered blocking. The life expectancy of a torrent or streaming site is a matter of months, but they just get another domain name and IP address when they get blocked. Some ISPs implement those blocks quite stringently using DPI, which is a bit of a faff to circumvent. Others just do the blocking at the DNS level, which is basically free to implement but incredibly easy to circumvent by changing your DNS server. Coincidentally, the ISPs that make a real effort to block pirate content also sell subscription TV services.
I stand by my prediction that most ISPs will do the bare minimum necessary to comply with the law. AAISP will probably tell the government to go fuck themselves, possibly literally.
>>17222 I'm not aware of any ISP subject to court-mandated blocking that does filtering by DNS alone. In fact, I think that method was specifically addressed by the claimants as inadequate.
As for A&A, that will depend on whether they have the resources to just pay any fines that come their way, and whether Adrian Kennard fancies being publicly pilloried for it as Clive Feather was the first time this came up. (He finally gave up the fight when the press started referring to him as "Britain's child pornographer-in-chief".)
>>17223 I suppose the best way to go about it if their hand really is forced, is to make the "blocked" page a passive-aggressive one with instructions on how to obtain and use a VPN, and perhaps details of petitions to sign and donation details to the EFF, Open Rights Group etc.
