Labor To Consider Age-Verification 'Roadmap' For Restricting Online Pornography Access (theguardian.com) 122
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The federal government is considering a "roadmap" on how to restrict access to online pornography to those who can prove they are 18 or older, but there are warnings that any system could come at the cost of Australians' privacy online. On Friday, the eSafety commissioner provided a long-awaited roadmap to the government for how to verify users' ages online, which was commissioned by the former Morrison government nearly two years ago. The commissioner's office said the roadmap "explores if and how age verification and other measures could be used to prevent and mitigate harm to children from online pornography" but that any action taken will be a decision of government.
There were a variety of options to verify people's ages considered during the consultation for the roadmap, such as the use of third-party companies, individual sites verifying ages using ID documents or credit card checks, and internet service providers or mobile phone operators being used to check users' ages. Digital rights groups have raised concerns about the potential for any verification system to create a honeypot of people's personal information. But the office said any technology-based solution would need to strike the right balance between safety, privacy and security, and must be coupled with education campaigns for children, parents and educators. [...]
It comes as new industry codes aimed at tackling restricted-access content online, developed by groups representing digital platforms, and software, gaming and telecommunications companies were submitted to the eSafety commissioner for approval. The content covered includes child sexual abuse material, terrorism, extreme crime and violence, and drug-related content. The commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, will now decide whether the voluntary codes meet her expectations or whether she needs to enforce mandatory codes. [...] The second phase of the codes will set out how the platforms restrict access to pornography on their sites -- separate from the use of age verification systems.
There were a variety of options to verify people's ages considered during the consultation for the roadmap, such as the use of third-party companies, individual sites verifying ages using ID documents or credit card checks, and internet service providers or mobile phone operators being used to check users' ages. Digital rights groups have raised concerns about the potential for any verification system to create a honeypot of people's personal information. But the office said any technology-based solution would need to strike the right balance between safety, privacy and security, and must be coupled with education campaigns for children, parents and educators. [...]
It comes as new industry codes aimed at tackling restricted-access content online, developed by groups representing digital platforms, and software, gaming and telecommunications companies were submitted to the eSafety commissioner for approval. The content covered includes child sexual abuse material, terrorism, extreme crime and violence, and drug-related content. The commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, will now decide whether the voluntary codes meet her expectations or whether she needs to enforce mandatory codes. [...] The second phase of the codes will set out how the platforms restrict access to pornography on their sites -- separate from the use of age verification systems.
The Man and his slimy fingers. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This is due to two effecte: First, of course authoritarians (and anybody actively seeking a position of power is that to a degree with only very rare exceptions) always are in it for control over others. Of course the only really satisfying type of control is total control, hence they always drive things in that direction when they see an opportunity. They also always feel justified, hence any lie and ant fantastical construction is acceptable.
Second, bureaucracies are always trying to grow and get
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways to do age verification that would not give the federal government any more control, such as anonymized Class III user certificates. They'd not stop kids from hacking their parents' accounts and stealing the certificates, so only have limited value, but they'd not give anyone - government or corporation - any more information beyond an alleged age.
It's Australia . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I guess if they don't say "America's Labor", I'll assume it's Australia.
Re: (Score:3)
I actually thought we were talking about the UK before I remembered the Australian Labo(u)r party can't spell its own name.
Harm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about the supposed harm that porn would cause to children. Well, ostensibly it is, but that isn't the actual motivation. The actual motivation is emotional, not logical.
ANY association of "child" and "sex" makes us squeamish. Even if this is not images of children, but only in-and-of-themselves-legal images of adults being viewed by children, there is a part of our brains that gets the same reaction. It is still "child" and "sex" run together. It creates an emotional misfire in the brain. M
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod-points you would get them. Came here to write more or less the same.
As long as they aren't interested it will be ignored, as soon as they are interested they will find a way. This goes for any content.
It will only inconvenience the public not (officially) targetted by this policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that your post begs the question. There's no questioning of agreeing when there is studied evidence that what is done, experienced, or viewed "voluntarily" when young largely shapes our behaviour as adults. That's the entire premise of the fact that the young brain is fast developing.
You won't find adults blaming themselves as that would require that they a) admit they have a problem which few adults do or are capable of, and b) admit that they caused the problem themselves.
Note: This comment isn't a
Re:Harm? (Score:4, Informative)
People who actually work with children say that it does do harm.
Porn gives children, and adults for that matter, unrealistic expectations about sex. Even university students who have been surveyed reported feeling pressure to emulate porn, for example by shaving their pubic hair or engaging in anal sex.
For younger children it can create body image issues, and give them harmful ideas about what potential partners want from them. People who work in sex education report that some children end up thinking that the behaviour they see in porn is normal, and particularly girls expect things like being choked or having their partner ejaculate in their face. For boys there is a lot of worry about penis size and the volume of semen they ejaculate.
That's not to say that trying to stop children seeing porn is the right answer. Education might be better. Set healthy expectations and behaviours early.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Porn gives children, and adults for that matter, unrealistic expectations about sex.
Just like any other form of media, like G.I. Joe or fashion magazines? Those can cause a lot of harm, too, and least until kids grow up and fully understand that it's all fictional bullshit.
The easy thing to do is tell kids that porn is entertainment, and it's not real. It's the naked equivalent to professional wrestling. I already understood that by the time I started drawing cartoon porn around age 12, which is why all my early sexualized comics were humorous and not be taken seriously. For the most p
usual technical incompetence (Score:3)
Re:usual technical incompetence (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, you apparently don't understand that the previous government, which crafted the "roadmap", was one of the most reactionary, right wing pack of fascists Australia has ever seen. They were good friends of Rupert Murdoch, whose propaganda empire worked hard for many years to keep them in power. This is their baby, and the current government, which is rather spineless, seems intent on trying to placate the would-be totalitarians by adopting this piece of garbage.
You should be delighted that they're apparently ready to cave to the far right.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, you apparently don't understand that the previous government, which crafted the "roadmap", was one of the most reactionary, right wing pack of fascists Australia has ever seen.
yes it was, that doesn't make this bunch of incompetents ok just because the last ones sucked. Censorship was something labor pushed hard for last time it was in government as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That should tell you something. Like US Democrats and Republicans, you're not really looking at a left wing and right wing party, but rather two cheeks of the same bum, both of which are wholly corporate owned. There are very few parties in any "First World" country that are truly left of centre right now.
Re: (Score:3)
in Australia both parties are really left leaning now
Wow. You're a fucking idiot. By world standards the Australian Liberals (conservative party) are right wing and the Australian Labor Party (union aligned) are centre-right.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you replied to the wrong comment. I said basically what are saying...that both parties are right of centre (and corporate owned). I certainly didn't say "both parties are really left leaning now".
Re: (Score:3)
Compared to what?
The LNP that took a very well designed NBN and gave us the copper hybrid system thats cursed 2/3 of the country to internet speeds and connection instability that will take another decade to rip out and replace and vastly higher cost despite the howls of protest from industry experts?
That instituted a "robodebt" system that was literally impossible to implement without billion hundreds of thousands of people for debts the
Re: (Score:2)
Dear lord , will this blasted hell-site ever introduce an edit button to compensate for my shit eyesight and fumbling iphone typing.
Come on slashdot, your target audience is ageing and our typing is getting stupider, the least you could do is catch up with web standards from a *decade* ago :(
Re: (Score:3)
sadly Labor in Australia have a long history of technical incompetence
Please don't be partisan about this. The entire Australian government has a history of technical incompetence. Heck even when the PM was a former CEO of an ISP they fucked up the rollout of the National Broadband Network.
The entire political spectrum in the country is full of either old clueless grandpas are young clueless idealists.
some people may not want to give CC card just chec (Score:2)
some people may not want to give CC card just check there age and after that it may be $1 + fees to cover the costs.
Adult Check: grown-ups can pay for nice things (Score:2)
In the late 1990s, several web publishers participated in federated paywalls called "adult verification services." A well-known AVS was Adult Check, which charged 10 USD per month and shared a commission per page view with publishers. It was sort of like Medium for erotica: subscribe once, beat it everywhere. Webpass.io tried to bring back the AVS idea in the mid-2010s with sites not quite as erotic but never took off.
Good (Score:2)
We can’t have kids accessing pornographic texts like certain smut verses that exist in the Old Testament of the Bible.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's any risk of a kid every picking up and reading the old testament. It's just not a compelling read.
I know you're were trying to make a point, but you completely missed what the topic is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I'd ban the Bible from junior/primary schools. It's not a healthy text for kids that young because minds that young can't differentiate too well between fact and fantasy. As teens, they can be introduced to a selection of the religions of the world (and not just one) for a balanced perspective on belief systems. They should not be taught "this one is the truth", but rather "these different ideas are sincerely believed by peoples around the world". Then let the teenagers sort out what they want to a
"d*cks like donkeys and c*m like stallions" (Score:2)
I'd start with Ezekiel 23:19-20 [biblehub.com]. From NIV: "Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of stallions." Then proceed to the erotic poetry of Song of Songs/Song of Solomon. Once you're done, read "Florida man asks schools to ban Bible following the state's efforts to remove books" by Matthew S. Schwartz [npr.org].
More Biblical lewdity (Score:2)
backslashdot gave a longer list of lewd verses in The Bible in this comment [slashdot.org].
By idiots, for idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing in the article points out the obvious flaw in this whole idea which is what to do about the hundreds/thousands of porn sites and services that won't take part in this scheme (because they're illegal, not based in Australia, allow unmoderated user uploads or generally just don't care)?
The entire premise of the idea is that all porn sites are an "industry" that operate above board within Australia's control and jurisdiction and will voluntarily implement Australian government controls. That's just absurd on the face of it. It's a fucking loony idea for idiotic religious nuts and conservatives with no understanding of how anything really works in the real world.
The only way this proposal makes any sense is if you just automatically assume you can block all non-complying websites, darkwebs, apps, forums, game servers, torrents, streams, chat rooms, virtual worlds and whatever other ways kids will find to access porn. They've already tried and failed multiple times and still have nothing that can't be easily circumvented - yes, even by children.
All they will achieve is driving kids to content that has no controls at all; that groom and exploit children, abuse models, harvest credit cards, install malware, promote rape and sexual violence and all of the other things that "legitimate" porn sites generally filter out.
But hey, at least you get a warm feeling know you did your best for the children right? Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Who here honestly believes that banning this material will keep adults from getting it? Banning things like this makes them less accessible to children, but I've never known an adult who couldn't find this sort of material on the internet, banned or not.
That said, this appears like an attempt by Labor to get conservative-leaning moderates to vote for them. Nobody thinks this will be effective; the point is too portray the right-wingers as insane, and Labor as the moderate, sensible alternative. They w
Non-complying sites then need to be censored (Score:2)
I had thought the censorship wars were over with Conway. But they are having another go.
Too much trouble to mention the country? (Score:2)
I realize Slashdot is pretty much dead, killed off by its own ideological intolerance, but is it too much to ask that it at least pretends to be a news site?
5 Ws and an H too hard to understand while you are getting upset over someone using a pronoun you don't like or cowering before a mythical catastrophe that in a few years will have other people's descendants laughing at you. (Lets face it you aren't going to have descendants at best you may think you had them)
Re: (Score:2)
In the first line of the summary is the word 'Australians', so I think this is about France.
Re: (Score:2)
The climate crisis is not mythical. If you believe that it is, well, like most religions it doubtless gives you comfort and you're entitled to comforting falsehoods. Just don't go telling the rest of us that we have to believe in your death cult as well.
Am I mixing up my UK parties? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The two major political parties in Australia are the Liberals (left-of-center authoritarians), and Labor (also left-of-center authoritarians). And there are of course also the Greens (far left authoritarians).
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind I'm an overtired idiot. This is the Australian labor party not the UK labor party. Still weird to have a party branded as labor wasting time on issues that don't actually have any effect on labor. Does Australia even have a proper pro-labor party?
I think the fundamental issue is the party doesn't even know how to spell Labour so one can't really credit them with any brains at all :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still reeling at the revelation that they are called the Labor Party, not the Labour Party. Between that and the way Australians say the word "cache", I'm starting to question my assumptions about non-American English.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, considering it's an article from The Guardian the UK would have also been my first guess...
Re: (Score:2)
Tomeeeto, tomaaato... Quite frankly, both sides of the aisle want to curb what you can think, say, see and hear. For different reasons, granted, but that's the business both of them are in.
Technology is possible but how to know? (Score:2)
Given that in the US, the NSA was hacked, losing some very embarrassing information, and in a separate incident, a list of every American with a
Don't offload your spawn on me (Score:2)
You wanted them, you have them, now take care of them. If you don't want to do that, there's ways to avoid them.
Your belief people are competent is touching (Score:2)
However all the evidence is that 'Currently, 45% of pregnancies and one third of births in England are unplanned or associated with feelings of ambivalence.'
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
Note that this is a country where family planning is cheap, subsidised on the NHS.
Are we all DEAD? (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure everybody looked at porn before 18. Maybe we are all just degenerates.
We're all degenerates (Score:2)
Standard Christian belief, of course. We all need to be saved. Maybe Christianity is right about this... ;)
If kids want to see pornography (Score:2)
They should have to do that like in the old days, when a kindly MP would invite them into their car to view it at their home, under close supervision.
Sir Norman Fry Compilation - Little Britain
https://youtu.be/REpNTi-9oRQ [youtu.be]
Hey Editors! (Score:2)
Who is Labor? I assume you're talking about a political party? Which country? The basic requirements of a title is to contain meaningful information, not to confuse.
Can you please learn to title, like every kid did in grade 7 English class. You didn't even bother to add a picture of an Akubra to the post like you do with every other Australian story.
DO YOUR JOB.
Law of unintended consequences (Score:2)
The internet has proved incapable of being policed for seriously nasty porn. So the idea that porn sites could be enforceably required to do anything is laughable. And this might be lead to the milder end of the market being off limits to kids whilst the really nasty stuff remains available to them. This would not be a good outcome...
What content now? (Score:2)
So, after verifying I am 18 or older I get access to child sexual abuse material?
Or what is the relevance of naming currently illegal content together with an age verification system.
Good and this is why: (Score:2)
It will teach curious youth to circumvent stupid policies and to hate stupid people, which are the vast majority of humans.
It will interest youth in computers by rewarding them with porn.
There is no downside to these fearful, hyper-regulatory policies so loved by the legacy states of the British empire. If those nations wanted personal freedom they'd have taken it by force long ago like the US did by killing their Crown masters. They don't so they get exactly what their publics vote for by action or inactio
Fuck these prudes (Score:2)
It's time to stop allowing religious extremists to trample on our freedoms and shame our bodies. Sex is great. Porn is great. Children don't become damaged by watching porn. Stop allowing these crazy fucks to debilitate our technology and peaceful enjoyment in our free time. They just don't want to have to explain sex to their own kids because they, the adults, are fucked up.
Not possible (Score:2)
There is no way to stop people from accessing porn if they want it. Porn on the internet is there, it's not going away. If you want to help kids grow up in a world where the internet exists and where it doesn't turn them into monsters, you need to deal with it through parenting or education.
Re: (Score:1)
That's kind of the problem, isn't it? The government certainly will abuse every scrap of power given to it. Meanwhile, at least some part of sexuality seems to be imprinted [1] and we now have a lot of kids who have imprinted strangely and are suicidal over it that we have no good ways to treat, though it doesn't help that there are many badly flawed studies on the topic, including one that managed to misrepresent its own evidence.
So kids should probably have some exposure to normal sexuality, just not th
Re:Cue the normal comments (Score:4)
And then there's my unpopular opinion that 1. it a good idea to have age verification online for goods and services that require age verification in physical shops, 2. there are ways to implement it without involving the government, and 3. it does not invalidate the idea that some youngsters will find ways to bypass it (there are also ways to bypass physical verification in shops, and this does not invalidate the need). [I'm going to sleep, sorry won't answer soon.]
Re:Cue the normal comments (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed the third one (which is true):
It is not possible for them to set up an effective system that actually does enable anonymous access by those 18+. You can't have both age verification and privacy online (at least, I haven't seen a proposed way to do it that can't be abused or broken).
The job of protecting minors from porn is the parent's, not the government. Parents should not give unrestricted devices/access to their children. School/daycare should follow the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure but that's what I would tell an individual parent, not a society of millions of parents. If there's a measurable negative effect on society our response can't just be "welp, just be better parents everyone" if we want a positive result.
We gatekeep lots of things from minors through the legal system, why would this be any different?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cue the normal comments (Score:5, Interesting)
>"If there's a measurable negative effect on society our response can't just be "welp, just be better parents everyone" if we want a positive result."
Sure it can.
There is always some measurable negative effect of any policy (or not having a policy). That has to be weighed against the positives. And many factors also have to be considered:
Practicality
Responsibility
Cost
Freedom
Privacy
Security
Etc (and I am sure I missed some others there). No system will be completely protective, and there is also a diminishing return. In the case of porn (and any number of other non-child-friendly content), it isn't practical to try and limit EVERYONE. Especially not in a free society. It is ultimately the responsibility of parents. Trying to make it a government duty is expensive, and will remove freedom and privacy from adults.
What I do support is giving parents useful tools. For example- phones, tablets, TV's, computers and such with effective lock-down modes that are under the control of parents. I will call them "parent-friendly" devices, where the parents don't have to be IT experts to ensure some reasonable amount of safety and security for the devices they give to their children. I also support education to parents about putting effective locks on their own devices (biometrics, passwords, etc) so children can't use them without consent or supervision.
An extreme analogy- If parents thought of smart phones and such as "guns", then perhaps the point would be more clear. You would never give a child unsupervised/uncontrolled access to a gun. And your guns should be under your control or locked down at all times.
Personally, I think "porn" is probably the LEAST damaging part of unrestricted Internet access at this point to minors. Social media is just as, or far more dangerous, on so many levels.
>"We gatekeep lots of things from minors through the legal system, why would this be any different?"
Because there is a difference between information and physical things. You can restrict access in person by age by just looking at someone or checking an ID without recording WHO is consuming/accessing/buying something. Not really possible remotely on devices in a person's hands.
Re: (Score:2)
If parents thought of smart phones and such as "guns", then perhaps the point would be more clear.
The story is about Australia, they don't trust most adults there with guns either. Otherwise though, it's a sound analogy. Parenting is a significant responsibility and if too many people seem ill-equipped for the task, perhaps some sort of "Child Rearing 101" needs to be added to the senior year of high school (or whatever Australia's equivalent is).
Re: (Score:2)
Guns is perhaps the wrong thing to look at. There was significant negative impact of guns in Australia. A more apt example would be the fact that they don't trust parents to have an unfenced pool on their property because regardless of whether children live there or not, someone could theoretically drown. Speaking of children you know if a child under the age of 12 is left alone (e.g. walks to school) the parents can be imprisoned?
Guns aren't permitted in many countries, but few countries can truly be consi
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree, it is not easy and I would definitely err on on not restricting adults but everything is a balance and in the real world we do restrict children (they can't go into an adult store, purchase an adult magazine etc) and we accept some additional friction as adults for that but ultimately adults still get what they want and children are somewhat restricted.
Now I agree there really isn't a good way to accomplish this idea online as of right now. My point is I think that is more the issue. If we did
Re: (Score:3)
Well defended position, well written, and appreciated.
>"If we did have a method that would supply some reasonable restriction on children but ultimately just a very small amount of friction for adults, do we do it?"
I wouldn't, not for online. Because, again, I don't think it is POSSIBLE to do without completely stripping anonymous or even semi-anonymous access from adults. And it would likely place that tracking information in BOTH big corporate AND government's hands.
>"Would you support legislation
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is POSSIBLE to do without completely stripping anonymous or even semi-anonymous access from adults. And it would likely place that tracking information in BOTH big corporate AND government's hands.
A fair attempt could be made, For example, banks and similar establishments could offer (for a cost) a proof-of-age signing service for any token presented to them, using the same mechanism they use to authorize transactions. The porn site gives you a random token, and tells you to get it signed by a proof-of-age signing service. I think something along those lines could be made to work, if there was genuine interest.
Re: (Score:2)
One, and only one of those statements is wrong. Can you guess which one?
Hint : in the last 2 decades there has been a huge increase
Re: (Score:2)
We already gatekeep this as 18+
Why do we gatekeep at 18? Why not no restrictions at all? If there's a good reason than question 2 is "is it working"? If the answer is no then we go to part 3.
I'm glad you weren't making the rules when cars came about.
And you would probably feel a traffic light was a restriction on your freedom, glad you werent making the rules that actually had to be made to make cars work.
Re: (Score:2)
There might be a way that would be less likely to be abused - Class III user digital certificates.
The idea of a Class III digital certificate is that it requires extensive evidence that the person/organization it is for is the person/organization that is applying for it. However, there's then no reason to have the person's physical name on the certificate itself. It can be anonymized by using the birth date plus a serial number for a name. Because it's a user's certificate, the name doesn't have to match an
Re: (Score:2)
It still requires that we *believe* it was actually anonymized. We can't verify or trust that is/was actually the case.
Re: (Score:2)
We can inspect the certificate. If the name field just has the birth date and no other inspectable string has your name in it, then you can be confident that it was anonymised.
However, there's also the trust level of the entity that produced the certificate. If the private company that produced the digital certificate can't be trusted, then how long will its master keys remain in web browsers/web servers as valid root certificates? You can't just set up your own company to roll digital certificates, you hav
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have both age verification and privacy online (at least, I haven't seen a proposed way to do it that can't be abused or broken).
Let's ignore the breaking/abusing part, since practically any usable system can be broken and or abused. And let me state that I'm not in favour of age verification, as a parent of two teenagers I think parents should teach their kids about the pitfalls of the internet....
But, here in Switzerland, they were discussing a similar law, and the privacy focused groups actually had a proposal how age verification can be done anonymously. Essentially, if I understood correctly, it would work like the certificat
Re: Cue the normal comments (Score:3)
The first ones will come from those who are genuinely convinced that the only reason to want an age verification system for age-restricted comment is as a first step as part of a sinister plot to create a surveillance state.
Probably because it is. They may or may not have any intention of that right now, but something like this definitely lowers the barrier to that in the future. By a lot in fact.
The next will come from those who just don't want there to be an effective mechanism to age-restrict age-restricted content probably because they feel it shouldn't be age-restricted but realize that argument won't fly so they will pile-on with the surveillance state folks.
To be honest, I don't think it will even work. It's easy as hell to get around this stuff. It has a lot of problems that have nothing to do with age restrictions:
1) Privacy. I mean seriously, I realize you'll claim that you wear a chastity belt to remove your temptation to jack off, but you know you still do it anyways.
2) It's just fu
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's all I had seen by age 14, so too bad.
Anonymised Class III user digital certificates would allow you to avoid surveillance issues whilst offering age verification, but would still not stop kids hacking their parents' accounts in order to get hold of the certificates for themselves. There's no scheme that can stop kids from doing that. However, this would be a few thousand pounds/dollars cheaper than kids stealing credit cards.
Re: Cue the normal comments (Score:2)
How is any form of certificate supposed to offer privacy if it can't simply be copied and used by whoever without the verifier knowing the difference? And if it can be copied and used by whoever, then what's the point? Literally all it takes is just for one person to leak theirs and the entire system is completely broken, but we still have to use it anyways.
This is akin to asking for crypto backdoors. Mathematically it just won't work.
Re: Cue the normal comments (Score:2)
Most of the time I browse it without being logged in at all.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
Besides, it doesn't do the creepy shit fecebook does where it announces to everybody that you're online.
Re: (Score:2)
and you're worse than both of those
>yes mommy, govern me harder.
bootlicking statist.
Re:Cue the normal comments (Score:4, Insightful)
The first ones will come from those who are genuinely convinced that the only reason to want an age verification system for age-restricted comment is as a first step as part of a sinister plot to create a surveillance state.
If you're going to go down the route of requiring porn sites to comply with a specific regulation, you could just require a standardized HTML tag [google.com] that makes the site easily identifiable to parental blocking software. Age verification requirements specifically are being sought because there is something more insidious planned than just preventing kids from finding porn.
Requiring that sites tag their adult content wouldn't put an unnecessary burden on site operators, and those of us who aren't children simply won't notice any difference. Thing is, that sort of solution is never going to be good enough for the morality police.
Require? How? (Score:2)
Given that the internet has proved incapable of being policed for seriously nasty porn, the idea that porn sites could be enforceably required to do anything is laughable. And this might be lead to the milder end of the market being off limits to kids whilst the really nasty stuff remains available to them. This would not be a good outcome...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the first group is right. There is no sane reason to want this type of verification system in place except to identify people online, regardless of context. History also shows that when such a mechanism is implemented it always gets extended and the data it produces always gets used for other things as well, typically ending at restricting free speech. While at least some of the actors behind this may genuinely think they are doing good, some will be perfectly aware what they are doing and that the cl
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, why do you take the fun out of it? You're like that guy that goes into Titanic and complains that she sinks. Yeah, of course she does, but what we're here for is watching HOW it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This here is Slashdot, where old, tired memes go to die. What do you expect?
Re: Cue the normal comments (Score:3)
You know this article is about Australia right?
Re: (Score:1)
Well he does vote republican
Re: (Score:1)
public/private keys are part of trust relationship standards for individual to machine pair communication. as opposed to the web user interface which is access to agency with general policies to encourage people to use them. simply make a agency domain to verify users which is how it more or less is now. look at crypto for example the middle finger to trust relationship for the sake of capitalism and liberty which will now be made more transparent to the user space by security domains since they screwed it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's reasonable to put some more gatechecks on adult material online.
Why? I'm not sure what the demographics are in Australia, but here in the USA 77.9% of the population is over 18. [census.gov] It's why almost every idea that starts with "think of the children" almost always turns into a slippery slope which ends up affecting adults.
Keeping kids away from porn is the job of their parents. I'm totally cool with the government requiring that porn be labeled as such so blocking software has an easier time identifying it, but that's as far as the regulations should go. The majority of
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not super sold on the idea, I could be talked out of it but I think from some evidence I have seen in some studies as well as the reports coming out about a real lonliness problem with young adults coming up I think there are some societal detriments that come from exposure of pornography at a young age. Average age of exposure is 13 I think from this? Some as young as 10?
https://www.commonsensemedia.o... [commonsensemedia.org]
Again, I'm not super positioned on this because as you said, adults should be allowed to access wha
Re: (Score:3)
Again, I'm not super positioned on this because as you said, adults should be allowed to access what they like but I think it's pretty clear that the pervasiveness is outpacing parents ability to control it.
Parents' ability to control it is precisely the issue that should be addressed. It needs to be braindead easy, to the point of clicking "I'm setting up this device for a child" and you're done. This is something the computing industry should've implemented voluntarily, because once the government starts regulating they can't help but make a huge mess of things.
The other issue is that regulating at a government level takes away control from the parents. Here in the USA, age of consent varies from between [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The other issue is that regulating at a government level takes away control from the parents. Here in the USA, age of consent varies from between 16 to 18. In many states, there are also close-in-age exemptions for younger teenagers to consent to sex with their peers. This leads to the rather bizarre situation where you actually have adolescents who are old enough to consent to having a real-life sexual encounter, yet aren't legally allowed to watch pornography.
Presumably these laws would be a restriction on purchase, or acquisition from someone who is not their guardian without permission, not on consumption. If you want to buy your teenager porn or consent to them signing up for some website presumably you could. Just like in at least most states the drinking age is 21, but there are exceptions like you can serve your under 21 a glass of wine with dinner in your own home.
Parents' ability to control it is precisely the issue that should be addressed. It needs to be braindead easy, to the point of clicking "I'm setting up this device for a child" and you're done. This is something the computing industry should've implemented voluntarily, because once the government starts regulating they can't help but make a huge mess of things.
We agree here but one thing you are missing is big tech seems to not be just ignoring the
Re: (Score:2)
even the most dedicated parent can't protect their children online. Its damn near impossible. It would be like if we still allowed unmonitored coin operated cigarette machines everwhere and told parents - hey if your kid smokes its entirely your fault.
This is a really good analogy to the issue.
I understand the privacy concerns with restrictions on content, but where I come from is fact that technically, legally, adult content is already restricted to 18+, so we already decided to restruct, we have a reason to do it, it's just barely enforced in any way. If the answer is "heh, that's the parents job to watch their kids content" why have any restrictions at all ya know?
Re: (Score:2)
This leads to the rather bizarre situation where you actually have adolescents who are old enough to consent to having a real-life sexual encounter, yet aren't legally allowed to watch pornography.
As the son of a coworker of mine found out, close-in-age exceptions can circumvented by prosecutors. In his case, the parents of the girl stated that the girl was intoxicated, therefor, was unable to give consent. There was no proof of the girl's intoxication beyond the parents' statements. Also, the social worker (and her manager) from child protective services recommending against charges. In the end, the prosecutor offered "indecent liberties" with a sentence of 2 years. The judge strongly encouraged the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tying it to financial systems only makes it almost impossible to avoid fraud. You think horny teeny Timmy will care what shady webpage he hands his dad's credit card number to?
Re: (Score:3)
"There is no reliable way to verify a persons age without relying on financial institutions and exposing them to fraud risks."
Yes there is. Pairing curves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . This allows you to attest securely, membership of a group (like the over 18s) without revealing your identity.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I should have been a little more specific in that "no readily available way currently".
I do appreciate sending this though, this is the kinda thing I was thinking of, that there is a technological way to do this, we just need the political will to make it a reality.
Do you know about this more than I do? Is it actually feasible to implement if the effort and money was put towards doing it?
Re: (Score:2)
That Wikipedia article doesn't make it clear to me how this applies to age verification. "There are three roles when using EPID: Issuer, Member and Verifier." Clearly the web site with the content is the verifier and the person accessing the content is the member. But who is the issuer? How does the issuer ensure that the person in question is of-age? How does the verifier ensure that the person presenting the ID is in fact the person it was issued to?
No system is perfect of course, but please walk me t
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever entertained the idea that the kids just see them as some other type of clown? Because that's how that gets sorted out by a kid's brain. That's someone who is dressed up funny and flashy, just like the clown last week.
You have way, way bigger problems with them than your kids, ya know?