Pornhub Sues Texas Over Age Verification Law (vice.com) 123
Pornhub, along with several other members and activists in the adult industry are suing Texas to block the state's impending law that would require age verification to view adult content. Motherboard reports: The complaint was filed on August 4 in US District Court for the Western District of Texas, and the law will take effect on September 1 unless the court agrees to block it. Governor Greg Abbott passed HB 1181 into law in June. The plaintiffs, including Pornhub, adult industry advocacy group Free Speech Coalition, and several other site operators and industry members, claim that the law violates both the Constitution of the United States and the federal Communications Decency Act.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs write that the act employs "the least effective and yet also the most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas' stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors," and that minors can easily use VPNs or Tor; on-device content filtering would be a better method of restricting access to porn for children, they write. "But such far more effective and far less restrictive means don't really matter to Texas, whose true aim is not to protect minors but to squelch constitutionally protected free speech that the State disfavors."
Under the law, porn sites would be required to display a "Texas Health and Human Services Warning" on their websites in 14-point font or larger font, in addition to age verification. "Texas could easily spread its ideological, anti-pornography message through public service announcements and the like without foisting its viewpoint upon others through mandated statements that are a mix of falsehoods, discredited pseudo-science, and baseless accusations," the complaint says.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs write that the act employs "the least effective and yet also the most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas' stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors," and that minors can easily use VPNs or Tor; on-device content filtering would be a better method of restricting access to porn for children, they write. "But such far more effective and far less restrictive means don't really matter to Texas, whose true aim is not to protect minors but to squelch constitutionally protected free speech that the State disfavors."
Under the law, porn sites would be required to display a "Texas Health and Human Services Warning" on their websites in 14-point font or larger font, in addition to age verification. "Texas could easily spread its ideological, anti-pornography message through public service announcements and the like without foisting its viewpoint upon others through mandated statements that are a mix of falsehoods, discredited pseudo-science, and baseless accusations," the complaint says.
Christion Nationalists (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the Christian Nationalists are at it again. Trying to force their view of a Christian 'utopia' (see: dystopia) upon the rest of us, whether we like it or not. They're not satisfied that anyone thinks, or looks, differently than them. Like the Spanish Inquisition, the beating will continue until everyone is one mindless happy snow white caliphate.
Re:Christion Nationalists (Score:5, Informative)
They really can't be called Christian when they don't even follow [newsweek.com] what their little book says about their namesake.
Re:Christion Nationalists (Score:5, Informative)
That just makes it even more clear that the whole thing has nothing to do with morals, but is solely about dominating people and tell them what to think, how to live and what to believe. Essentially just a power-trip for the "leaders" and some kind of masochisms/real submission/Stockholm Syndrome behavior in the followers. If you want to protect children, make sure they do not get access to this crap.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to protect children, make sure they do not get access to this crap.
Agreed. Children shouldn't [imgur.com] be [imgur.com] around [imgur.com] religion [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Some pastor was complaining that his flock see Jesus as weak and a bit of a cuck.
Re: Christion Nationalists (Score:2)
Re:Christion Nationalists (Score:4, Informative)
Jesus would get called a woketard and get crucified again in today’s climate. https://www.rawstory.com/trump... [rawstory.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I can only speak to my own personal experience but having had access to porn as a kid:
1. saved me from killing my conservative ass hat parents who refused to let me date till i was 18.
2. saved me from becoming a pervert/rapist etc. Don't need to perv on real people if you have unfettered gratification in the safety of your own home.
3. enlightened me to be more tolerant and open minded.
4. kept me physically fit. I have not had to pay a gym membership in my life, I've stayed stick thin and jacked just fr
Re: (Score:1)
Except the feminists are now opposing porn as well (Score:1)
Yes, once upon a time it was only the religious that took exception to porn. Then women realised that their being objectified in porn was unhealthy for society. And now there are suggestions that porn is educating teens to do sexual activities which are inherently inappropriate.
So no - once more the church has been shown to be demonstrating a wisdom that reveals the world to be very nasty. Dismissing this as the work of a small subset of Christians demonstrates a simplistic prejudice against Christianity.
Re: Except the feminists are now opposing porn as (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your optimism is showing... there's a theory that teenagers are human. This is widely believed despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Modern "feminism" is a religion, unlike old-days feminism that was a civil rights movement.
Just see what groups hate porn: christianity, islam, communism, nazism, SJWs, rashists, american christians-in-nothing-but-name. Ie, those who want total control over the lives of others.
Congratulations! (Score:2)
You've noticed that all morality derives from self determined beliefs. Your next lesson is to work out why you believe what you do about what is ethical behaviour, and is this based on anything except going with the flow of what everyone you know believes.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, am none of those.
But this isn't about Porn in general. It's about verifying kids don't access porn. And even if I'm none of those, I'm against kids having access to porn. Or alcohol. Or Drugs. Or Guns.
How can anyone with any shred of morals be against that ?
So then define "porn" (Score:2)
Does it include the softcore stuff? frontal nudity? Bare shoulders or shins (some denominations hold to that standard)? What if a woman shows part of her face or has her hair down (that's actually illegal in some parts of the world)? Should it include drawings? Tentacles? Yiff? Shock videos with multiple girls and a cup? What about movies like Saw or Hostel that use blood and gore for the shock factor (yes, there are actually people that get off on stuff like that
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the sibling post bringing up the definition of porn, there is the definition of kids. A definition that has been changing for the last century and a half or so. Age of consent used to be 7 years old, as after working a few years you were pretty mature. Marriage used to be common at 14 years for girls, 16 for boys. Now the age of consent varies from 14 to 18 or 19 depending on jurisdiction.
For some reason society has been extending childhood into the years where people are sexually mature more and mo
Re: (Score:2)
Implementation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Christion Nationalists (Score:2)
Re: Criminals shouldn't file lawsuits (Score:1)
The validity of an argument is independent of the entity making the argument. While motives may be called into question, the reasoning needs to be judged on it's own.
IMO, the attempt by Texas to achieve some over arching theocracy is absurd. The push to regulate access "on behalf of parents" is just a inversion of the typical "think of the children" mentality. Hysterical, overwrought, and lacking basis in actual fact
Re: (Score:2)
Going by your standards (XXX does not have safety or compliance, they have liability shielding), you'll very likely close 80% of the US business and virtually anything from Texas. You sure you want that?
Re: (Score:3)
Pornhubs history of monetizing child porn is more or less indisputable
i see a lawsuit with some funny claims (like comparing them with "the soprano", literally) but little hard evidence. stories like that of a girl who allowed a boyfriend to take nudes of her, then somehow found out they were on pornhub. oh wonder, who would have thought! it seems they were taken down, just not fast enough in her opinion. maybe, but i'm thinking ... shouldn't she be suing the boyfriend instead?
so, no, apart from some juicy headlines, that "history of monetizing child porn" is far from indisp
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure pornhub is a video site. From what I remember of that, the problem was that videos were being uploaded repeatedly and that a takedown was required in each case. Pornhub eventually got around to implementing checks on uploaded material, to prevent exactly that.
As to suing the boyfriend, what happens if the obnoxious little p-o-s is a minor himself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Criminals shouldn't file lawsuits.
I agree. Unfortunately for you Pornhub has not been found to do anything criminal. And since we live in a world of innocent until proven guilty you'll have to accept that fact.
If you don't then I ask you why you are a criminal paedophile yourself, and no I won't bother to listen to you try and defend yourself, you didn't offer that curtesy to those you accused either you sick kiddy diddler.
Compromise (Score:2)
I don't think porn is "good." And almost nobody would argue it is appropriate for children to see. It probably does satisfy some adult needs and at the same time desensitizes others.
That said, trying to "age verify" information access online almost certainly means automatically means complete violation of privacy. And that is something I do find abhorrent.
I think the best compromise is a rating system standard for sites to better assist content control systems done on devices, themselves, under control
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My kid has unrestricted internet access.
Instead of doing something useless like running some blocker she'll find a way around or block at the router which means she'll just turn off Wi-Fi and so on, I do this weird thing parents don't generally seem to do anymore.
I talk to my kid.
I know she looks at things I'd prefer she not (she's not looking at porn but the net is full of toxic shit). We talk about it. She has learned the difference between the garbage and what's worth taking seriously and properly mock
Re:Compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
But pornhub's arguments are crap, too. They say kids can easily get around age verification but then say boo hoo it's a constitutional violation and so much harm is being done.
That's not PH's argument. PH's argument is that " The act violates the First Amendment in three fundamental ways. [documentcloud.org] "
#1 - It's overly broad and fails the Strict Scrutiny test, by imposing a least effective but simultaneously most burdensome method compared to the (pretextual) claimed purpose of the law.
#2 - The "warning" constitutes forced-speech on a topic that is "controversial" at the very least. Texas could spread the religious propaganda itself without forcing business entities to engage in speech against their will.
#3 - It's unconstitutionally vague on the topics of (a) WHICH websites it applies to, or not, and (b) what forms of "age verification" the TX government deems compliant with the law as written.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we just agreed but you used more words to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
In order for it to be least effective, that means that PH has a better system for keeping minors off their platform. I'm sure that their explanation of such a system will be quite enlightening. And no, parents should pay attention to what their adolescent kids are doing 24/7 is not a viable substitute. Well, unless PH is suggesting that single parenthood should be outlawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez, it's right there in the summary: "on-device content filtering would be a better method of restricting access to porn for children". IMHO they're correct, too. Consider yourself enlightened.
On device filtering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't want them watching it and don't want them doing it. If only we could invent an eighteen year sterility pill we could finally achieve evolutionary perfection.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, discovery doesn't work the way you're thinking it will. A lawsuit over constitutional rights/protections (1st amendment, Supremacy Clause / Section 230, 8th Amendment, 14th Amendment) does not mean that Texas all of a sudden gets to go on a fishing expedition into the multiple plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Discovery only applies to relevant documentation/materials/testimony. [cornell.edu]
None of what you proposed Texas would go fishing for is relevant to seeking an enjoinment against enforcement of the law due to it
Re: (Score:2)
Discovery will be relevant because Texas will say PH is hiding their CP crimes behind a 1A shield and a Texas court will grant it.
The 1A is not all encompassing.
Re: (Score:2)
and a Texas court will grant it.
The lawsuit is federal. A "Texas Court" has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok yes and the 4th us district court is really liberally pro CP?
Re: (Score:2)
I talk to my kid.
Only thing that works. Apparently a lost art though. Seems there are a lot of crappy parents out there that do not even get the basics right.
Re: (Score:1)
Tbh, it's really fucking hard sometimes. She's at that stage where kids rapidly change and grow, she experiences new things every day way outside my control now that she's in HS. She seems good with it but I often feel like I'm riding a bull. No idea when I'm about to say the wrong thing and so on and these chats show me how many of those outside experiences she really has. Trust is hard to earn and keep. At least I think she understands and believes I never lie to her. I will tell her some things are
Re: (Score:2)
Who decided everyone should have kids, anyway?
That comes from the religiously deranged. They want to grow their flock/victim-pool, no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
No religion here. I adopted my wife's kid from previous.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think porn is "good." And almost nobody would argue it is appropriate for children to see.
Uh huh. Riiiight. Gather 100 parents in a room. Ask them two questions. First:
"How many of your children have a smartphone capable of internet access, perhaps even under the guise of safety?"
Based on a highly predictable answer, proceed with the next question:
How many of your children have a smartphone capable of 24/7 access to the most extreme hardcore porn a planet has to offer, because you didn't implement age-appropriate controls?
You're gonna get an almost nobody answer here alright. Just not th
Re: (Score:2)
The only way they don't have that access is if you're running a whitelist for all their internet traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way they don't have that access is if you're running a whitelist for all their internet traffic.
Sounds like the perfect bullshit excuse to not even try.
Parenting I mean, not internet filtering.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You're gonna get an almost nobody answer here alright. Just not the one sustaining THAT argument.."
Not sure I am following your point. Are you saying nobody will answer, or that nobody will answer correctly? Does this imply that most parents are irresponsible, deluded, ignorant, and/or stupid? That parents think it is OK to give the tools to access just about ANY information, audio, video, and communicate with anyone, any time, and also be tracked by companies? Or something else?
Re: (Score:2)
>"You're gonna get an almost nobody answer here alright. Just not the one sustaining THAT argument.."
Not sure I am following your point. Are you saying nobody will answer, or that nobody will answer correctly? Does this imply that most parents are irresponsible, deluded, ignorant, and/or stupid?
Dare you to gather those 100 random parents and ask the question if you're still confused. Answering "correctly" would imply we don't have a problem to discuss. Hardly the case.
That parents think it is OK to give the tools to access just about ANY information, audio, video, and communicate with anyone, any time, and also be tracked by companies? Or something else?
Not only yes, but FUCK yes.
(Rather hard for the child addict to be policed by the adult addict...in case you were still confused as what the real problem here is.)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, I hear you.
TrumpTok should have sued! (Score:1)
How are all the bots on there supposed to verify their age?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there some form of digital ID they have to show? I'd rather like to get one in Greg Abbott's name, or maybe the name of whoever started this stuff in Louisiana.
Texas: Learn behavioural engineering! (Score:2)
Texas should just mandate that all devices, internet service providers and public access computers used in the state implement reasonable measures to block hardcore porn sites by default using the same type of interstitial screen already used to discourage accessing dangerous websites. This would do the job without costing anyone their freedom and without imposing any onerous requirements on anyone since it
Re: (Score:2)
Texas should just mandate that
1. Poor, poor, thing. You haven't figured out, it's not about the kids. It's never about the kids. Kids are the excuse. What it is about is power. Repubs are Karens, and they'd love nothing but a huge Karen badge to force everyone to live as they dictate.
2. As several note, kids get porn. We did. Didn't seem to hurt us much.
3. One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
4. In the late '90, a couple of kids got themselves on a web cam. Huge uproar in the US. In Scandinavia (I forget which country) the re
Interesting (Score:3)
No, not the Slashdot zeitgeist reaction - that's just like the reaction of barflies to a dry law :p
But the whole concept and challenges of this sort of regulation.
I mean surely some goods and services are going to be regulated when it comes to age. Surely some are, and have been for a long time.
Why not porn? Because it's difficult? That doesn't stop government from micromanaging everything else.
It's apparently not so impossible for government to keep trying to regulate "hate speech" (i.e. "speech they don't like"). So why is it supposedly impossible to regulate porn?
Re: Interesting (Score:2)
Porn is bad, labelling is ok (Score:2)
...students reported severe or extremely severe levels of depression, anxiety and stress, respectively, with compulsive pornography use significantly affecting all three mental health parameters in both sexes
14 point type? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Already The Law (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Although I find it funny that PH’s argument against Texas is that the law is unscientific. Um, since when did that stop any state from passing a
Re: Porn is bad for you (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure that if a right winger started bragging about eating beef 3 times a day, you'd enjoy elaborating on the health problems that tgis behavior causes. You would be right to.
Nobody is saying that fapping is the problem, or that getting aroused by imagery is the problem. The problem is a form over-use, over excitement. When one becomes used to cumming to gangbangs or simulated violence, every day, it also desensitizes to the sex he'll likely experience in real life.
So when you're insisting that po
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When one becomes used to cumming to gangbangs or simulated violence, every day, it also desensitizes to the sex he'll likely experience in real life.
This sounds like projection to me.
Personally, I have watched pron at times in my life, but I can't stand real or fake violence in it. And porn has definitely never desensitized my sex life. So unless you have data to back up your point, then I simply disagree.
Re: Porn is bad for you (Score:5, Insightful)
It's going to depend a lot on what age you start watching it. A ten year old watching violent porn probably isn't a good thing.
The thing I don't get is that porn is bad but all the gore sites are never mentioned. You can sit and watch people being disembowelled all day long and no puritans will be bothered by it.
That's a reflection of what happens in movies, too. Movies could be a force for good with some tasteful nudity/sex but there's people sitting on IMDB noting every scene with a low-cut dress or a short skirt. Hollywood is scared to touch it.
Violence and war? Probably half the movies that are made.
Re: (Score:1)
> You can sit and watch people being disembowelled all day long and no puritans will be bothered by it.
That's a strawman.
Because if you showed consumption junction to parent groups that want stricter age control for porn sites, they sure as heck would toss it on the pile of "things to age control" too.
There's just many less consumption junctions than there are x hamsters.
People who hate porn hate sex (Score:3)
Sex is a core part of my life and porn is a MASSIVE industry that brings me near endless joy. For the asexual, it's gross and weird and they hate that it's so popular. They'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Porn is bad for you (Score:5, Informative)
Link 1: a blog link... that goes to a 403 error... that appears to have been removed from the site AND that the site appears to have requested even Archive.org pull.
Link 2 & 5: a highly biased religious-front-group site (Mormon Cult front group from Salt Lake City) with no connection to any science.
Link 3, 4 & 6: Vice, Washington post and NY Times articles about a shady business, which was rightly shut down for illegal practices. But the connection to PH is only tangential and PH was never included in the lawsuits nor the criminal prosecutions.
Your argument seems to be "someone found an unethical business somewhere, so we should shut down capitalism." But moreover, it looks like your bullshit post is something you have to copy/paste as spam. Let me guess, you're one of the Cultist Mor(m)ons?
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly the rabbit hole is even rougher the farther you poke. The site is back in link 1 but the first reference paper just guesses at the "reason" At least the one about the links between porn and divorce rates seems creditable. The second link has a whopping 22 references and half of them have been discredited by just a simple google search on the titles.
I mean don't get me wrong. To much porn, like anything else, is to much of a thing. But some of these papers are blatantly bias, sold as science f
Re: (Score:2)
What I find amusing here is that the original article - along with one of the ones Moryath linked to - is on vice.com. "Go to vice.com for your Vice news", definitely has something.
Re: Porn is bad for you (Score:1)
Re:Porn is bad for you (Score:4, Insightful)
Religion is even worse.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Religion is not the source of all evil, but add quasi-religious ideology and it is the source of most of it. Porn, on the other hand, is generally just pretty harmless entertainment. You cannot even compare the two, because that makes no sense.
Of course any business has its black sheep (be it barkeries or porn producers), but that does not generally devalue the product.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not religion per se, but proselytic religions, whether they identify as a religion or not.
Compare christianity with soviet-style communism:
* scripture
* clergy
* portraits of prophets everywhere
* promise of paradise (heaven vs earthly workers' utopia "once we'll reach communism, for now it's only socialism which is imperfect communism")
* preachers and mass propaganda
* rituals and processions
* extreme hatred towards unbelievers
* and even wors
Re: (Score:2)
Well, mostly. Non-proselytic religions have their own problems but generally seem to be somewhat less evil. That is not universal though.
No argument about quite a few extremer political leanings essentially being proselytic religions.
PMRC MarkII (Score:2)
I've followed most significant porn studies since the President's Commission (still the gold standard), President's Commission mkII, erototoxins, Dworkin, etc., and for the most part the harms of porn are overstated. The new McLuhan-based arguments are maybe novel in how they misrepresent McLuhan ideas (or at least my understanding of them) while also ignoring why porn is being singled out in this media landscape.
But taking the longview, I can already tell you how this law (as other attempts that proceeded
Re: (Score:2)
My god, we had the Disneyfication arguments ages. ago. Can we move on already?
Wait till the right finds out they're carrying out Disney's plan...
Re:PMRC MarkII (Score:5, Insightful)
So information on birth control should be age restricted? How about venereal diseases? Anything discussing homosexuality? Safer sex practices?
Seen all of these fall under the rubric of "porn". Hell, The Diary of Anne Frank has been banned under the same.
If there was parental guidance, there wouldn't be any need for the law.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole problem is that too many parents suck at being parents. Hence teenage pregnancies, clueless teens, teens that think porn is realistic and other crap.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice example of that "mix of falsehoods, discredited pseudo-science, and baseless accusations" you have there. There certainly is no scientific basis to your claims, quite the opposite. From the (limited) available research, porn is not even necessarily bad for the underage. The most it can apparently do is give them unrealistic expectations and that is easily rectified by parents explaining that porn is a scripted artistic performance by performers selected for untypical bodily attributes and about as real
Re: Porn is bad for you (Score:2)
Surgeon General's Warning: By us telling you how bad and naughty this content is, we've increased your sexual excitement 33% while fapping. You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
That left magazines, all of which were R-rated and basically just nude art
Pretty clear you only ever saw a Playboy mag. Hustler was about as hardcore as you could get from a still image. Same with a few other ones sharing the shelf with them at your local 7-11
Re: (Score:2)
You can always move to China, WindBourne, and get your Social Credit Carrying Card there, you know. It will suit you fine on their Socially Responsible and Very Safe Internet behind the Great Fire Wall. I've been exposed to the latter at times and it is great.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would I want to move to your nation? No thanks. We already have a load of your countrymen trolling/sock puppeting here.
As to the Internet, plenty of places to be on the net where you are anonymous. The issue is without a DECENT option for showing IDs, few will be vetted on email, txt, IM, etc. Likewise, the majority of ransomware attack, hell, cyberattacks, are because of the anonymity, and easy ability to catfish.
And by having a vetted Digital Certificate, it does not mean that one is FORC
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Banking:
Banking: [forbes.com]
While the digital banking trend is promising, the main drawback is that these digital banks sometimes lack proper identity verification during new customer onboarding.
....
The most popular solutions to identity verification are as follows:
Social media checks to trace an individual's digital footprint.
Live agent verification for individuals that are difficult to verify.
Device analysis to uncover signs of potential fraud through a device's setup and how information is accessed.
Assessment of an individual's fraud risk using a combination of email, phone and IP data points.
Remote scanning of a government ID and facial biometrics to confirm identity.
Stock trading: [investopedia.com]
When investors contact brokers, they are often surprised by the number of requests for personal information. The broker is just complying with the law and rules set forth by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).
....
Indeed, certain required information must be obtained before a broker can make any trades on behalf of a client. These include your Social Security number or tax ID, your contact information, and whether or not you are an insider at any publicly traded corporation.1
Gambling: [casinosonline.com]
The freedom of the Internet has indeed brought plenty of positives into the gaming industry. But it also paved way for fraudulent use of identity, accounts, funds etc. To protect both themselves and their clients from any misuse of sensitive data, gambling operators have introduced a set of measures which include identity and age verification.
One of the most important rules state that gambling sites, casinos and betting venues need to know their customers. Widely known as the KYC acronym, these regulations imply identity and age verification procedures. These might strike you as tedious and unnecessary but it’s quite the opposite. CasinosOnline.com recommends preparing a few documents before registration. Here is what you need to register with an online casino:
The copy of your ID card.
Your passport.
Your driver’s license – or any other photographed document.
A utility bill.
Your bank statement.
While the online casino verification might vary from operator to operator, this is what it typically looks like:
Upload the copy of your ID, passport, or driver’s license.
Alternatively, you need a copy of a utility bill or bank statement.
Enter all your other data, including your full name, birth date, and address of residence.
Select other relevant options, such as the banking method, currency, etc.
Comply with the terms and conditions and tap Confirm.
Look at that last one. That is JUST for gambling and it is the SIMPLEST of them (brokers and banking are much stricter about verification for many reasons).
SO an on-line vetted digital certificate would replace all that, and stop the possibility of our information being stolen by CHina, Russia, Iran, etc. It would also
Re: (Score:2)
That's an invasion of privacy on a monumental scale. There are absolutely employers in Texas who'd use information like that to fire folks.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, they would require someone has to send in a photo of both sides of a photo ID, AND a CC. And with that much information, PH would be STUPID to not hang on it and sell it. OOTH, by doing vetted digital certificate, one of the certs could be name and birthdate. All that PH would have do is check the cert and not even bother to keep (it would not be in their own interest to keep it). There is no
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And this issue with vetted DCs is at the core of STOPPING cyber attacks, as well as solving these issues. THat is why Estonia implemented this, along with much more, after being attacke by Russia in 2007 [e-estonia.com]
And the fact that you have no knowledge of me, nor of the security industry is very apparent. Worse yet, you show ZERO reasoning with any of your posting.
Re: (Score:2)
That's your nation, Wind. You like to present papers, many chances to do so there.
Re: (Score:2)
But, if you want, there are SOME nations, including a few developed (canada and switzerland), which allows you to do so. [internationalwealth.info]
And you can bet on it that these nations will come under pressure to have verified banking once they are hit with terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
They are suing the WRONG ppl. They need to sue the federal government for NOT making it possible to have vetted digital certificates.
Implying pornhub is doing this because they want age verification? Were you born an idiot or is this a learned trait?
Re: (Score:3)
It is better to be quiet and thought an idiot, then to speak up and prove it so.
Nothing was implied in the least. Had you actually completed 8th grade or above, you would know that. Sadly, all you have done is prove that your nation does not have decent schooling.
The states are forcing porn and various other groups to block certain age groups. The problem is that they do not give them the tools to do so. Even with porn, it will lead to kids ( hopeful
Re: (Score:2)
A company known for eliminating it (Score:2)