back to article Brit film board proposed as overlord of online pr0nz age checks

The British Board of Film Classification will be responsible for regulating age checks for UK users of online porn websites, if the government gets its way. The UK's Ministry of Fun* has proposed the BBFC as the regulator for ensuring sites are using age-verification controls. These checks were made mandatory by the Digital …

Anonymous Coward

So first you have to opt-in with your ISP then prove your age?

Did I not do that by being old enough to sign up to an ISP?

Tits.

18
0
Silver badge

old enough,....

... yeah, you'd have thought that having a direct debit from a current account and being the owner of the property where the broadband was hooked up to would identify someone as an adult. But hey,.... apparently not.

I presume the UK Citizen Card will be acceptable proof? The Govt negotiated that with all the adult sites before proposing the ban didn't they?

6
0
Silver badge
Coat

You made a boob of yourself there...

1
0

"So first you have to opt-in with your ISP then prove your age?

Did I not do that by being old enough to sign up to an ISP?

Tits."

...like coconuts!

And - sparrows like breadcrumbs!

4
0
Silver badge

Breaking: I am writing this in my local via their free wifi. You think they want to register as an ISP and do age verification checks on everyone who reads the password off the chalkboard behind the bar?

3
0
Gimp

Tom, this is your wife, I was wondering where you were. Come home NOW!

"You've been a very naughty boy", it that helps you cum home any quicker.

I'm waiting!

And it's bin night!

P.S. please bring a Chinese.

No, not girl, food!

Bad bad boy!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

@Tom Paine

Good point but...

Who in their right mind would opt-in to porn when sharing the connection via public wifi?

I suppose if you had a coffee shop call starfucks you might.

0
0

"Who in their right mind would opt-in to porn when sharing the connection via public wifi?"

You'd be surprised. "Right mind" implies "thinking", after all.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

block sites that don't comply by telling UK ISPs to restrict access to them

as long as they do no more than what has been done about pirated contents, let them.

btw, it will be interesting to see the first court case when parents are being sent to jail for watching their underage kids watch themselves on one of those banned sites...

1
5
m-k

development of age-verification products is "out of BBFC's hands"

I think this should be handled by another widely-known and acclaimed board of mumsneters! Surely they wouldn't shirk from their life-long responsibility to keep our children safe?!

p.s. never mind the gov funding!

2
1
Gimp

First they came for the porn sites and I said nothing, because I had a ball gag in my mouth...

42
0
Silver badge

Nah. S&M play always works better with the threat of punishment, not the actual punishment!

...I said nothing because my mistress told me, "Touch that keyboard bitch and I'll have you over my knee!"

6
0
IT Angle

@FuzzyWuzzys - I'm going to assume here that you are an 18 year old girl. If not, please ignore my comment, and apologies to you, good sir!

---------------------------------------------

...I said nothing because my mistress told me, "Touch that keyboard bitch and I'll have you over my knee!"

-------------------------------------------------

I like it how she works it.

Btw, Pandora brings up some very pertinent and important points about how this will affect people using 'audio' porn. It seems to be included, but no one knows what it is, technically. This is a major drawback for blind people. If I may virtue signal for a moment, I used to 'look after' a big fat Oirish ogre of a blind bastard once. Great chap. Told him about my experience about trying to help a blind person off the tube who told me "I can help myself thankyou very much I don't need you".

He said: "Oi fokkin' hate fokkin' bloind conts like dat I doo, to be sure". Ok, he didn't say the 'to be sure' bit. That was an exaggeration. "If somm wan orfers me a fokkin' hand I gladly accept, I do, to be sure". I might have over-gilded the lily with this one. Mind you, this was a bloke that pulled out BOTH of his glass eyes and plonked them in a pint glass (half full) at his local pub when someone accused him of faking his blindness. You never can tell. The barmaid puked.

Long story short. Do you not think he deserves a bit of audio porn as well? HTF does he set up all the extra shenanigans (not a smart reference to his ethnicity I promise) on his computer, when he has to get in wankers like me just to get it to work in the first place. I can't imagine him saying: "So Oi'm tryin' to arcsess dis here smot soite, bot dey keep askin' me for a fokkin' password to moi credit card, so dey do".

Can't see it happening really.

Pandora makes an excellent point about how no one really knows how these laws will be applied. She's asked, but not received any feedback. She also brings up the general point that if these new laws are applied to audio, will they be applied to text as well. She goes in to depth and explains it much better than me. Still, I've not heard anyone bring up that argument elsewhere.

Also see: http://mylesjackman.com/index.php/my-blog/106-the-following-content-is-not-acceptable

for what is and isn't allowed. It's a mockery of everything that is common sense. It's an affront to logic. It's an invite to the Lords of Karma. We shall see how this unfolds...

Meanwhile, back in the office.

---------------------------------------------

...I said nothing because my mistress told me, "Touch that keyboard bitch and I'll have you over my knee!"

-------------------------------------------------

FuzzyWuzzys had just about had enough of this stuck up cunt bossing her around like she owned her, all because she directed a paycheck to her once a month.

So FW decided to turn the tables on her. She'd seen the way the horny old slut had been eyeing up her pert, erect nipples, which FW made sure were particularly pert and erect any time she got called in to the "cunt's" office.

FW touched the keyboard. Then touched it again. In fact, she just kept jack-hammering F5 like a mad woman. She did everything but stick out her tongue. This was a direct disobeying of an order, and she knew it wouldn't go unpunished. But would the office bitch have the balls to back up her bullshit, and put Miss FW over her stocking clad knee? If so, FW would submit. If not... Miss FW would know she was hers. And that bitch would be going over her knee, for some swift and strict punishment.

They both looked at each other for a few seconds. Neither breaking their gaze, but neither submitting either. The office bitch looked all shocked and 'how very dare you', but Miss FW just looked at her right back as if to say: "What the fuck you gonna do about it, bitch?".

It was a tense standoff, and now I'm probably banned from El Reg for life, and on some other kind of register as well, I wouldn't be surprised...

If not, tune in next week to see what happened. Advertising space available. Age Verification provided...

:-)

Bitches...

[Dedicated to the memory of Miss B, the finest Moderatrix, the entire internet has ever known]

2
3
Silver badge

And the internet will....

treat the work of moronic politicians as a failure and route around it.

6
2
Silver badge

BBFC

I thought the British public had had enough of un-elected bureaucrats imposing their will upon the population...?

13
0
Silver badge

Re: BBFC

It's a fun thing to do with Brexitards trotting out that "unelected bureaucrats" line. Ask them to name the current head of the Civil Service.

(Just as the response to 'taking back control' is to ask when they intend to repeal the 14,000 other binding treaties the UK has signed up to...)

1
4
Peb

So this

Is the time to buy shares in VPN companies!

5
0

This may, perversely, encourage more porn

In my spare time (though it's rapidly taking up a lot more than that), I run an international leather club, for gentlemen who like leather uniforms. We have a strict dresscode, which has to apply to all photos uploaded, that explicitly prohibits (amongst other things) nudity, and sexually explicit photos.

We operate as a non profit, and our income is just from member donations and T shirt sales. It's not a hook up site - far more social than that, and this year our members around the world have organised over 150 social events.

And yet, we're classified as pornography by Sky's broadband filter. I raised this with them and they said "We categorize all fetish sites as pornography even the more innocuous ones like this site."

That, ultimately, may sound our death knell. If, as some reports have suggested, every site presently listed as porn by filters is told they have to verify age, I doubt we would be able to afford the fees that will be charged by one of these firms - and since we try very hard to protect the privacy of our members, I'd be very reluctant to go down that route anyway.

If, however, we were forced, then what would happen? We'd have to get more money from our members, which would almost certainly mean moving from a donation to a paid membership model. But with only around 3,500 members and no explicit photos, why would people pay? For the community stuff - perhaps - but then would all our volunteers around the world still volunteer to do things for what was now a commercial outfit? I doubt the figures would work out.

And so, to make ends meet, we'd have a couple of choices - destroy a twenty year old community by selling up to someone with deeper pockets. Or relax our rules and allow people to upload explicit photos to their profiles, in the hope that doing so will encourage people to think it worth paying for.

There are many fetish communities online that don't have explicit content. I don't particularly object to us being flagged "for over 18 only" so that we could be filtered out by prudes or parents. But by labeling us porn, this stupid rule could well force us to choose between ceasing to exist, or actually becoming a porn site.

24
0
Silver badge

Re: This may, perversely, encourage more porn

Try and get in touch with AVSecure. From what I heard they set up largely to address situations like yours.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: This may, perversely, encourage more porn

Well Nigel, according to the Great Ordained Daily Heil and The Sun That Must Be Obeyed, you *are* pornographic, I mean, who in their right mind would want to dress themselves in tanned animal skins the way you do? It's non-narrow-tunnel-visioned-frock filth and thus is an affront to the Victorian attitudes by those who rule by the Great Ordained Daily Heil and The Sun That Must Be Obeyed...

Of course, for the rest of us, it's just 'live and let live...' *cue the eyerolls here*

For any avoidance of doubt, I agree with you and find it pathetic.

5
1
Trollface

Re: This may, perversely, encourage more porn

What if I were to admit I find it highly arousing to watch images of 650 fully clothed men and women sitting in rows, hurling jeers and insults at each other?

I'd hate it if the BBFC were to ban such filth...

20
0
Silver badge

Re: This may, perversely, encourage more porn

Hang on, don't assume that the proprieters and marketing droids of these newspapers actually dislike the pr0n. After all, most of them are happy to print nude pictures and I imagine get up to all sorts of stuff in the coke-fuelled orgies. Given the way media barons work, they probably own a fair few of the sites too.

It's just a marketing position, pushed to appeal to those mumsnet types. No morals are involved, just profit.

4
0
WTF?

Re: This may, perversely, encourage more porn

@Nigel Whitfield.

So the government get to say what is porn and what is not. Noice.

I'm in a similar situation to you with your leather thing, setting up a fetish site with no nudity and no porn. It's fashion based. More patent leather and snakeskin kind of stuff but for rich women.

This is why I've spent all day reading all this BS. It's game over really. The last 3-6 months of research and business planning I have done is down the pan. It wasn't supposed to be porn. Perhaps slightly 'erotic' for those that like that kind of thing, but also with cross-fertilization with bona fide fashion sites and new designers, established retail outlets.

Bummer. So to speak.

Actually, I'm not in a similar situation to you at all. I've got out while the going was good. You, good sir, will most likely have the rug pulled out from right under you very soon. All that hard work down the pan. I wish you well and hope you can salvage something from the mess.

I just feel a total idiot for not picking up on this sooner. Doh. I wonder how many others are about to get caught out as well.

3
0

Re: This may, perversely, encourage more porn

"So the government get to say what is porn and what is not."

They do have a lot of it on their computers for "analysis".

3
0
Silver badge

"The Department for Culture, Media and for some reason also Sport."

( The new series of W1A was fantastic ).

8
0
Silver badge

Don't forget "digital", which the gov has decreed s now a noun.

3
0
Silver badge

Heaven forfend that vulnerable minds ("Of course, it doesn't affect ME") should see other humans having it off, but at least they'll still be able to watch atrocious violence, abuse, terrorist executions and the rest on all the other non-porn websites. Always wondered what kind of mental cesspits would-be censors must have, that they'll mouth stridently about a spot of shagging, yet have almost nothing to say about media depictions of people being shot, blown up, tortured and creatively murdered all over the place. It's ok to watch Schwarzenegger blast half a dozen people to bloody chunks, but GET THAT NIPPLE OFF THE SCREEN!

Take several lazy-minded, self-righteous idiots, add a huge dollop of technical ignorance, and get—bad, stupid laws. It's called modern politics.

20
0
Silver badge
Meh

Re: get that nipple off the screen

Heaven forfend that vulnerable minds ("Of course, it doesn't affect ME") should see other humans having it off, but at least they'll still be able to watch atrocious violence, abuse, terrorist executions and the rest on all the other non-porn websites

I've always been a bit skeptical about the vulnerability of those minds. Humans have been around for 200,000 years, and our human-like ancestors living in similar conditions for about 3.5 million years. And those conditions weren't suburban terraced houses.

There must have been a lot of public shagging going on when we lived in caves, and mud huts usually have just the one room. So that's about 140,000 generations exposed to public rumpy pumpy before it was declared harmful. I would have thought that natural selection would have long since eliminated any debilitating sensitivity.

15
0
Silver badge

"It's ok to watch Schwarzenegger blast half a dozen people to bloody chunks, but GET THAT NIPPLE OFF THE SCREEN!"

The Europeans have a more relaxed atttitude to bare flesh.

"Make love, not war" doesn't sound like a hippy soundbite in this context.

5
0
Coat

Paradise Lost!

0
0
Thumb Up

The UK leads the field in censorship. And perversion.

If it wasn't very naughty, Matron, then I just wouldn't get turned on!

0
0
Silver badge

Re: get that nipple off the screen

However what content are the (very large) media pushers pushing all the time? Yep, stuff that is heavy on explicit sex, nudity and violence - Game of Thrones is the most notable but this is just one of a very great many.

0
0

Or, in another scenario...

"Wrap them chairlegs in newspaper, Mother, they're inflamin' me ardour!" (Works best in a slightly posh accent) :)

One guy's porn is the other guy's art. Nobody else is entitled to be my moral censor : that's my job, not some government appointed control freak.

0
0
Silver badge

This is being set up to fail...

... the end run is a government run white list because the 'blocking didn't work'. Once the need for a white list is is established a charge will be made to be accepted or retained on the list. Like other similar schemes the charge will be insignifiant at first. Later it will be turned into a source of revenue for the Exchequer.

4
0

Re: This is being set up to fail...

but, but ..this is the internet ..designed from the outset to route round obstructions.If people in N Korea are still getting access to stuff they should not (and they are) then good luck HMG - now when can I have the tax you waste on this debacle back?

1
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Meanwhile

in peado corner, the kiddy fiddlers will be downloading child pornography from private FTP servers which have nothing to do with google/bing/regular grumble sites....

And the first peado done after the new laws come in will be used as an example of "Our laws are failing.... tighten the bans!!" by the likes of the daily w(m)ail et al

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Meanwhile

I worry that pushing porn underground will expose more people to that kind of stuff.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

It could have been so easy..

..to make something useful out of the domain name sell off.

Domains *.kid.* is for children. Everything else is adult.

4
0
Big Brother

Re: It could have been so easy..

@swampdog - that's a good point.

An earlier commentard was saying (I paraphrase) 'why do the kids feel the need to do this, how can we educate them, provide them alternatives?'.

Young kids (talking slightly pre-teen and early teen) like a lot of very socially acceptable things. They like fashion, they like music, they like make-up if they are girls, they like motor-bikes if they are boys. Yeah, I'm gender stereotyping. Sue me. The boys wear blue and the girls all wear pink. :-)

Nothing inherently wrong in any of this. These are fantastic, honest to goodness outlets.

Ok, so music has been usurped by those that want to push soft porn. We can solve that. It doesn't need to be that way. Fashion is harder as clothes are meant to make you feel good/secure/sexy - not necessarily in that order. Sometimes all at once. Make-up for a kid can just be advice on how to hide spots or it can be full-on 'make me look like my favourite slutty pop-star'.

Obviously it's not good for young girls to want to look slutty at the age of 13, I won't get in to the argument about boys at that age. We need to change the culture. And the truth is, sites like Youtube promote all kinds of stuff.

Disclaimer: I've done a fair bit of research in to the make-up scene on youtube. It would be peado heaven if you were inclined that way. I've been subbed to and friends with 13 year old girls that show how to either do the aforementioned concealer type make-up, or the going out type of make up. Usually their dad/mum finds out and the channel gets made private. No loss to me. They were small channels, but you did get the odd pervert. I white knighted as much as I could, keeping them in check, but ultimately it was the responsibility of the parents. Research. And now I'm providing my findings.

I got in to it via ASMR actually if the truth be told, and I have several long standing high sub youtube celebs that can vouch for me. Then I got in to the fashion thing. Now we have had the recent under-age paedo scandal. Yeah right. Like we weren't actively warning you 6-7 years ago about this. Where were the parents? 11 years old and doing make-up toots on how to look like Christina Aguilera? And that stuff goes on more than ever today. This is where perverts hang out and get their kicks, not necessarily the dark web. But 'ad-revenue'.

The wild west is almost over with all this stuff, but then again, a new wild west is starting. As more people connect, children getting sexualised at younger ages by big corporations. It's hypocrisy at its finest. I have 'mens rea' in my defense for anything I've watched. But what do google or youtube have in theirs, after actively promoting this? They push it then they want to police it. It's like a psychodrama.

The more they crush it the more it will grow. Stop buying your kids fucking iPads for fuck's sake.

There should be a domain exclusively for kids. No adults. A safe space if you like (god I hate that term). Anyway, how do we police it? Age verification? Ah ah. Gotcha.

AND/NOT Logic? EITHER/OR?

We have seriously failed our kids in providing any kind of framework for them to have a sandbox of their own. And the thing that rustles my jim-jams the most, is how we use them as a lightning rod for the great lightning strike of 'muh children - won't you think of them'. Worse than hypocrisy. It is disingenuous and sinister.

In my time of doing a little research on the matter, it has not just sickened me a little to see how the big organisations like the FBI and CIA and WTF actually perpetrate this crap by letting it go unpunished just for new marks, new hits, new budgets, new kicks probably.

This world is a cesspool. No one cares about the kids. They are just bait.

But wouldn't it be loverly for them to just have their own little world to play among each other, in innocence. If they had that, the government would have to shit on it as an excuse to police the adults, in the name of, just to keep them under control.

1
1
Silver badge

If I knew what the problem was, maybe I'd have a solution

So little Johnny (or Jane) sees porn. If they are young, they giggle and get back to something interesting like Minecraft. If older, they get aroused, have a wank, then get back to something interesting like Facebook. Not sure I see at what stage there is any damage caused, unless there is concern that it might interfere with the pro-ISIS indoctrination of our disaffected youth.

13
0
Silver badge

Re: If I knew what the problem was, maybe I'd have a solution

Well. Up to a point. I fear it would be disingenuous to claim there's no harms to individuals or society /at all/ associated with porn. I just don't agree the harms merit this sort of policy response; in fact I think it will likely increase the aggregate harm and make the world, overall, a slightly worse place.

4
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: If I knew what the problem was, maybe I'd have a solution

There's a lack of really good science relating to the effects of pornography. It's not for a lack of trying - but once you throw out the studies actually carried out by anti-pornography groups, you find what what's left is contradictory and of dubious methodology. The problem is that you'll never get ethical approval for a controlled study*, and correlative ones alone tell you absolutely nothing when there are so many other variables which cannot be properly compensated for.

* Just ask your ethics board: "I'd like to show porngraphy to to two hundred children twice a week for five years, and see if they grow up any different from the control group."

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Rumors

I've heard rumors that the BBFC plans to block porn sites regardless of if they have age verification or not.

I'm not sure how credible it is, though.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Rumors

"I've heard rumors that the BBFC plans to block porn sites regardless of if they have age verification or not."

So...which Conservative MPs have a financial stake in top shelf print media?

5
1
Silver badge
Gimp

All of you have the wrong attitude

I see this as a perfect chance to have a Job For Life(tm). I hereby volunteer to be the one who searches the deep, dank, depths of the Internet looking for p0rn... and gets paid for it. I'd have to do a Proper British Job of it, of course, and go through every single website on the Internet, one at a time, inspecting them thoroughly and completely, before marking them as either p0rn-free or as filthy evil hives of scum and villainy. I figure that it'll take me at least an hour per site. Maybe two. Maybe even a whole day. Maybe a week, if the evil hive has enough villainy. I might need a few extra hard drives to store my research materials.

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. And I thought of it first, so it's all mine.

El Reg, you can get listed as being p0rn-free if you promise me enough BOFH stories, and if you bring back the Sainted Ms. Bee(tm). Otherwise... scum and villainy, ahoy!

10
0
Silver badge

Re: All of you have the wrong attitude

Bah. Turns out that there's prior art on this.

http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-07-26

It's still a great idea.

5
0

Re: All of you have the wrong attitude

Better make sure the health insurance covers RSI then...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Seeing pron at a young age? Back in the day it was the lad doing a paper round and nicking mags off the top shelf - he was tall for his age .. and another lad who found a strange Dutch magazine in a hedge. Sticky but educational.

Too strait laced us Brits by far.

4
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018