Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Nov 14 12:39:04 PST 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / British police fight for a trans future
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Nov 03 15:15:48
http://plu...LdUpsSmC86nzjoqLD4m4XNED4ytElM
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Nov 03 15:16:57
Police kick out straight kids from school for wearing normal clothes. Because it offends transgenders.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sun Nov 03 17:06:46
Seb supports this.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Nov 03 19:21:15
'the policy aims to address “the current issues of inequality and decency.”'

Lulz @ the regression of feminist policy to advance mental deviance
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 05 05:14:04
I will hold out hope, when the UK passed a law requiring everyone to sign up or buy some token to be able to watch porn, seb said it was stupid. I am sure of it!
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 05 05:23:35
Nimi
What is incidentally wrong with requiring two-stage verification for all manner of things that are subject to age limits?
obaminated
Member
Tue Nov 05 10:02:14
Hey jergul. What is it like to be a constant contrarian at the age of 40? Or 30? Most of us grew out of that a decade ago. Yet still you cant help yourself. So what is it like?
Dickhead UPer
Member
Tue Nov 05 11:14:13
What is it like being a retarded pizza delivery driver?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 05 12:55:10
Jergul
What is wrong with a verification system that is trivial to bypass, for kids. Symbolic legislation to solve non-problems, not my thing.
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 05 13:20:15
Nimi
So nothing is really wrong with barriers to access, you just thinking that children accessing pornography is a non-problem?
Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 05 13:30:24
There are myriad options for parents seeking to limit access to offensive content.

Leave it to a nanny-state Euro to advocate for the broadest net imaginable, funded by taxpayers, of course.

fOr tHe cHiLdReN
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 05 13:37:46
Jergul:

Let's train everyone to enter their personal ID into every dodgy internet site with potentially embarrassing info. What could possibly go wrong?

Similarly, let's give mindgeek a monopoly on access to safe pornography. What could go wrong?

I get the instinct - there's growing evidence base for the damage that internet porn can do to development.

But this solution was about the worst you could come up with. Plenty of children who've committed self harm and suicide over having their sexual preferences etc exposed of threatened exposed in extortion/blackmail rackets.

"But people shouldn't look at it and if they get exposed to additional risks" is the implicit assumption under the surface. And I don't think it's good enough.

Seb
Member
Tue Nov 05 13:38:55
Do I click on Sam's link to recount how inaccurately he's presenting it? It's there any point? Is there anyone who thinks it's accurate?
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 05 14:40:27
Seb
I think there is a growing need for proving age that should be detached from ID and payment information.

A modified version of the Norwegian Bank ID system would work fine.

Instead of confirming identity to the vendor (or bank), it would just confirm age (this person meets whatever age limit you have).
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 05 14:41:28
Seb
Its just a school that had a couple of community truant officers enforcing a school uniform dress code.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 05 14:43:25
>>there's growing evidence base for the damage that internet porn can do to development.<<

Experimental design? Double blind with a control group of children who only watched Care Bears? :)

How far are we willing to go to settle this issue?!
Nekran
Member
Tue Nov 05 14:46:09
It's not.

Though "community police officers" (which I assume is not a real police officer, but still someone who is employed by the state to do some light police work nonsense like this?) being utilized to enforce a school dress code is a very weird idea to me.
Nekran
Member
Tue Nov 05 14:46:57
That was an answer to Seb.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 05 14:54:21
The West quietly decided recently that they love cops in schools.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 05 14:59:56
Jergul:

Yes, there are ways to do this. The UK govt was building a brilliant system that was cryptographically secure and allowed citizens to have account(s) with identity providers (bank, post office, Experian etc) that you could then use to vouch for authentication with govt services via a hub.

Long story short, you could do cool things like HMRC could receive a request and return "yes" to a query like "did this person earn over y" knowing the connecting service requesting the data was doing so with the explicit approval of the individual.

It could also do (though was not intentionally designed to) things where say, you could create an anonymous account with a porn site, and the porn site would be able to get a trusted response from say, the driving agency, that the person was over the age of 18, and the porn site would never know the personal identifiers of the individual in question.


Sadly, after the 2015 election the minister protecting the forward thinking agency doing cool digital stuff retired, the new minister was a fairly weak nobody, the senior civil servants running the agency got clobbered by sir Humphrey who, for various reasons, didn't like these disruptive guys who came from non traditional (for senior civil servants - i.e not spent most of their career in public authorities or very large corporates that are culturally identical), and then the referendum came and the while thing went to shit.

jergul
large member
Tue Nov 05 15:10:54
Nimi
I will just invoke the precautionary approach to save torturing kids with carebears.

Seb
It applies to more than porn. There are lots and lots of things internet that could use age confirmation down to say 13 (there would be issues with children younger than so).

A spin-off would be 13 year olds learning to habitually use very safe practices on the internet.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 05 15:15:21
Who does not love over-designed solutions to ”problems” that are already solved for free in your web-browser, router and operating system? I am sold.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 05 15:22:36
Yes yes, we need nation-scale dragnet behemoths to cater to technologically-illiterate Boomers
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 05 15:41:31
Nimi
Its ultimately just a question of allowing vendors to confirm consumers meet the legal age requirement to access products and services offered.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Nov 05 16:13:53
Because in this imaginary world kids need to interact with ”vendors” to watch porn.

Ultimately you do not understand how easily your billion euro verification method can be bypassed by free vpns or torrent sites or all the masked sites that are not recognized by the national halal filter. Bless your sweet head jergul :) but the internet has run away from you, from all of us. It isn’t what it was 6 months ago.
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 05 16:52:45
Nimi
Its just a barrier. Nothing with age limits has ever been absolutely enforcible.

Nothing is going to stop the digital equivalent of lurking behind a shed looking at a dirty magazine one of your mates stole from his father's sock drawer.

Legitimate vendors wanting to act legally within a jurisdiction would comply with age verification systems.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 05 18:13:06
Nim:

It's not solved in browsers or operating systems.
Seb
Member
Tue Nov 05 18:14:53
Jergul:

Yes, I'm well aware. You could e.g. do right to work checks without disclosing additional details. Rather than have an employer try to work out of that's an authentic visa.
hood
Member
Tue Nov 05 23:31:54
"It's not solved in browsers or operating systems."

Pretty sure all main stream browsers come with a parental locking feature. Yes, the problem of young children not of legal age finding porn is already solved.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 02:23:55
hood:

Parental locking isn't the feature we are talking about though, the feature we are talking about is anonymous individuals being able to provide trustable proof of attributes from un-trusted sources without disclosing their identity and without having their usage tracked.

You are defining the problem significantly more narrowly than Jergul and I are.

Also, it's often a shitty solution based on ad-hoc whitelists or black lists, easily circumvented and way too many false positives that inhibit e.g. kids doing homework etc because sites are filtered and then you end up removing it.

Whereas if you were hell bent on controlling access to porn, you could make it a requirement to support this feature, and then require ISPs to block access to websites that do not support the feature.

From a technical standpoint, it's vastly superior.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 02:27:12
Nim:

It's not like research *starts* with a double blind randomized control trial and everything before that is not considered evidence.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 02:28:22
"the national halal filter"

What a strange thing to say.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 06 04:17:17
Seb
Least amount of information principles would also be helpful and in line with newer regulations on consumer ownership of their personal information.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 07:12:17
It was an awesome piece of enabling infrastructure. It's such a shame it became a casualty of brexit.
hood
Member
Wed Nov 06 07:43:43
Seb, the proposed problem was limiting adolescents ability to view material deemed inappropriate for them. Your refusal to consider parent lock features as a possible solution is indeed part of the problem. Using "bububut homework!!!!!" as your excuse of choice is telling.

A solution exists and it is indeed baked into operating systems and browsers. People criticizing your unmitigated need to over problem solve are not wrong.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 06 07:47:02
Hood
The actual proposed problem:

"What is incidentally wrong with requiring two-stage verification for all manner of things that are subject to age limits? "
hood
Member
Wed Nov 06 07:57:04
No, retard. Feel free to read Nim's post again. It's not difficult; it's short and was only the 5th post in the thread. Your compulsive need to move goal posts is unhealthy.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 06 08:01:11
Hood
Feel free to go back to general talk. Your contributions here are stunningly worthless.

hood
Member
Wed Nov 06 08:17:18
You should look in the mirror and consider that the person saying "... Uh, no fucking thanks" to participating in your circle jerk might be the rational one.

Oh, who am I kidding? I'm talking to the person who once tried to earn morality cred for "not engaging in petty insults" (paraphrased) but has wantonly abandoned any pretense of being aforementioned good person. Someone so inconsistent would never consider ookie cookie to be a bad game.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 06 08:46:42
Jergul
"Its just a barrier. Nothing with age limits has ever been absolutely enforcible."

This isn't a barrier worth the name or a barrier at all, it is a symbolic gesture to appease idiots. You are getting nothing for a lot of money. It is trivial to use a free vpn, it is trivial to download porn from piratebay or any of your trusted torrent sites. You can get nothing for free through your browser, router or OS, the added benefit being you can actually see your childs browsing history. Even if they are using piratebay, a VPN or whatever.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 06 08:48:07
Seb
"It's not like research *starts* with a double blind randomized control trial and everything before that is not considered evidence."

The joke being, try to pass a double blind study that requires children watch porn through the ethics board.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 06 08:56:39
A two step verification of identity of course has huge benefits, I use it all the time to do banking and confirm my identity when signing contracts. It just isn't of any use for stopping children from watching porn, because it simply will not synch with the consumption habits of said kids. Teen age boys are not going to stop watching porn any time soon, the consumption patterns and habits will shift to sites and methods that simply do not identify as porn vendors on the internet. That is, if these kids are, in any numbers, going to these "porn vendors" to begin with.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 06 09:12:06
Hood
I moved your general talk into the general talk forum.

Nimi
Seb and I are actually discussing the merits of system that allows vendors and others to verify partial information based on "Least amount of information principles"

It dovetails nicely with newer EU directives aimed at protecting consumer information.

Barriers are just that - barriers. Age limits do not stop children from getting cigarettes or booze either (they can just take both from their parents after all).

I see the value of reputable vendors being able to screen for age without getting any other information.

The concept is good for anything with an age limit.

Other barriers can happily coexist with this.

(vendors are often actually selling clicks. The children are the product, not the consumer).
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 09:13:30
Hood:

You are doing that border line belligerent / autistic thing again and I really can't be bothered.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 06 09:14:48
>>Seb
Member Wed Nov 06 02:28:22
"the national halal filter"

What a strange thing to say.<<

Halal filters in Islamic countries are designed to protect the people from things that are forbidden AKA Haram. Considering the OP and the spooky albeit unintended parallell tracks of wokeism with Islamism (policing dress code so others are not harmed) I find it amusing :)
The Islamic moral police isn't for shits and giggles, it is explicitely to stop the spread of corruption and moral decay, to protect society from harm.

"Harm" is one letter short of "haram" :P
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 06 09:19:11
Jergul
You and seb or anyone else are of course free to talk about anything you want. I am specifically talking about kids and porn. You asked, it has been answered several times by several posters, there is really no reason to beat a dead horse.
hood
Member
Wed Nov 06 09:23:15
Nim, it's also 1 letter short of harem.

Seb, maybe try being less retarded if you don't want your retardation beligerently shoved in your face. Every George Lucas needed a Marcia to tell him his overly complicated work needed to be hacked and shredded and gerryrigged into something good. When nobody tells Lucas what to throw out, we get Episode 1.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 09:24:09
Nim:

I'm agnostic on the principle.

But in terms of how to do this, parental controls are a joke - far too easily circumvented.
The UK govts proposal was batshit crazy and likeley to create more harm and risk.

Three way you could do this using a key piece of enabling infrastructure would be quite effective with some leakage (but what policy doesn't have non-compliance - and indeed if supplemented with parental control by ISP on allowing VPN could be very effective indeed.




jergul
large member
Wed Nov 06 09:24:14
Nimi
I have actually responded to your point on kids and porn.

It makes sense to have a national system that enforces national laws.

Its a rule of law thing ultimately.

Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 09:26:15
Hood:

"we don't need trains, the problem of getting from A to B has been solved by horses. Your billion dollar state subsidy blah blah... retardation...self righteous noise...."

Too tediously stupud to engage with.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 06 09:28:58
Seb
Interface blocks would actually be the way to go. Facial and dick recognition technology software blocking viewing and recoding.

So kids could stream porn, download, or wank off in front of their webcam, but would not be able to view it or record (more than a few seconds) on protected devices.
hood
Member
Wed Nov 06 09:34:21
Seb,

Your analogy is shit. There's a pretty obvious advantage in moving from point A to point B faster. There is no obvious advantage to requiring identification for porn sites just to "protect the children."
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 06 09:35:46
Seb
Trains are an obvious improvment over horses. The efficacy of a billion euro method to stop kids from watching porn has already been explained. But please go on and pretend this is about an ID verification system in general.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Nov 06 09:36:06
Haha :)
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 06 09:37:19
The argument is more that companies need comply with national legislation and that in order to do so, the companies need appropriate tools.
hood
Member
Wed Nov 06 09:37:24
Get out of my head, thanks.
jergul
large member
Wed Nov 06 09:38:30
Nimi
Its not about ID verification at all. Its about verifying the minimum amount of information needed to ensure compliance.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 10:30:42
Hood:

Your attitude, reasoning, and general intelligence is shit.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 10:41:54
Nimatzo:

Firstly, as we've been discussing, it's not a billion euro program (250m iirc over five years) nor is it a program to stop porn. It's actually a means to allow vouching details for any purpose while preventing panopticon govt and disclosing key identifiers to third parties.

And your arguments against efficacy are fundamentally flawed.

Parental controls fail because each porn site needs to be black listed; the black list maintainers frequently over-censor, and maintaining separate profiles is hard. Alternatively they rely heavily on attempting to identify pornography by algorithmic approaches that are fairly poor.

By contrast it's easy to block at ISP level pornography sites that don't interface with the matching hub(s), and parental control on VPN at the network level is trivial compared to parental content controls.

Yes you could still torrent but then torrenting activity is similarly easily recognisable and could have parental controls applied. I.e. ISPs could require adult account owners to enter passwords for torrenting or VPN usage, really managed by the router itself.

You'd easily be able to reduce accessibility to porn to underage to well below 10% level, if that was your aim.



hood
Member
Wed Nov 06 10:49:34
Seb,

You are akin to the emperor with no clothes. What you believe to be invisible, imperceptible to others, is really your naked emptiness in full display.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 06 16:06:59
Hood:

Seriously, nobody cares.
hood
Member
Wed Nov 06 16:51:26
Not sure I believe you.

Nim clearly thinks you're full of shit. I can confidently say every American here thinks your ideas are insane.

I wouldn't put faith in the inane ramblings of a psychotic fisherman as evidence of your off-kilter perception of reality.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Nov 07 02:49:53
Jergul
An ID verification method would be set up to only release the information needed or simply verify yes/no without releasing any information at all that whoever is seeking does not already have. This is clearly beyond your domain of knowledge.

Seb
I understand, the solution is to put more non-porn related sites behind the national filter. There is no bridge too far to solve imaginary problems.
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 07 03:15:43
Nim:

Er,no. In think you fundamentally don't understand the approach. What you are describing is how you'd try to solve the the failure of parental controls approach by doubling down. That's not what either of us are proposing.

Indeed what we are proposing involve less ineffective filters on content, filters on traffic type (easy and unobtrusive) at the router.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 07 03:46:01
Nimi
I think everything except your novel use of the term identification verification is clearly within my domain of knowledge.
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 07 04:19:44
Nim:

The way you do this is more complicated.

"An ID verification method would be set up to only release the information needed or simply verify yes/no without releasing any information at all that whoever is seeking does not already have. This is clearly beyond your domain of knowledge."

For example, in the system you describe, sure, the porn website doesn't know who is looking at it, but the ID service knows who you are, and what service is requesting info, and therefore what porn you are looking at. It's got a blackmail database. So it needs to be trusted. And even if trusted, it's vulnerable to attack.

What Jergul and I are talking about is how you do this without trust such that nobody knows anything they don't need to know, and there's no blackmail database.

This is the fundamental difference, and why you could get this to work in a market based system far more effectively than browser based parental controls.



Seb
Member
Thu Nov 07 05:40:44
So for example, you could make Facebook's "nobody under 13" actually enforceable. You could also make parental permissions globally enforceable rather than enforced only on networks the parent controlled.

And this could be done in a broadly decentralised way through an private market of identity providers, with the system self incentivising adoption.

I.e. it is very much the opposite of the centralised nationally controlled firewall you envisage.

The websites aren't filtered, they just won't allow access without authentication. But unlike the mindgeek/UK proposed scheme, it isn't vulnerable to blackmail; and because the authentication system supports everything from non-repruduable digital signatures, enabled data exchange between third party service, etc etc etc it supports more reduced fiction digitally delivered services than are viable now; while also reducing the potential for identity theft and other forms offraud, blackmail.

So actually you'd expect this to pretty much crowd out non supporting services in short order.

You'd still be able to find dodgy sites showing stuff, but it would be much harder, and there would be stronger incentives on ISPs, search engines etc. to filter those sites out as essentially the only reasons to run such sites are:
1. to provide free porn to the underage
2. As part of an elaborate phishing trap
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Nov 07 13:14:59
3) because the rest of the world doesnt give 2 shits about some stupid law in yet another powerless free speech hating shithole.
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 07 14:13:07
Sam:

The beauty of this is is essentially a standards play.

Once you have private identity providers, matching hubs, it bootstraps. Consumer pressure on ISPs will do it.
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 07 14:13:46
Also it's not a freedom of speech issue.

Like how you guys ban gambling sites.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share