285
submitted 1 year ago by CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

Looks like UK is going the same way as a few states. Spare a thought for us. So messed up this increasing surveillance state.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fogetaboutit@programming.dev 115 points 1 year ago

You got a loicense to fap mate?!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LukefromDC@kolektiva.social 89 points 1 year ago

@CrypticCoffee
As for me, I will never, ever use any site that demands a drivers license or a face scan to get on. I'd sooner totally disconnect from the open Internet and move all my work to the darknet only.

Zero voluntary cooperation!

[-] RooPappy@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago

"If they removed porn from the internet, there'd only be one site left... and it would be called 'Bring Back the Porn!'" - Doctor Percival Cox

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

I think online porn will die as local AI models get smaller and more accessible, as well as more tailored to people's niches.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 year ago

I don't think so. Porn is very much a mental thing too, not just a visual one. Knowing none of the subjects of the pictures and videos exist will ruin it for a lot of people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LukefromDC@kolektiva.social 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@CrypticCoffee Counter to that is obvious: DO NOT USE legal access modes, use Tor instead and access only sites that "block" the UK instead of complying.

Hopefully most porn sites will do exactly that, like Pornhub already did to US states that demand driver's license uploads (including Utah and Arkansa). When they attempted to comply with such a demand from Louisiana, open traffic from there dropped 80% and presumably VPN and Tor access jumped.

This told all porn sites that it's not worth the programmer time to even attempt to service legal traffic from such jurisdictions. Block non-Tor/non-VPN connections and enjoy immunity.

Best of all, it only takes ONE jurisdiction on the whole planet that won't censor porn to make these measures globally ineffective. Crack anywhere, play everywhere. This gives new meaning to saying "fuck you" to the government.

Any attempt by the UK to block Tor will fail: China can't reliably block it, and the Great Firewall of China has far more resources than "Hadrian's Firewall." Trying to jail people for using Tor would be nearly as difficult and would also face the legal obstacle of jury nullification. This will go the way of the failed 21 drinking age and 55 mph speed limits in the US.

As governments try to crack down on porn, on dissent, and on criticism of their Great Leaders, the clearnet will be of declining importance (possibly used only for shopping) and the darknet will become more important. Embrace the power of the darknet...

https://torproject.org

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Tor can be compromised though, you just need someone watching a good portion of the end nodes and hosting the fastest intermediate nodes, then run a viterbi trace back to a source. Tor is also very slow.

I'm looking at IPFS and FreeNet as viable alternatives

[-] LukefromDC@kolektiva.social 16 points 1 year ago

@tetris11 Slow yes, but if you download videos rather than stream them, slow is much less of an issue.

Even the US is not capable of watching all Tor exit and guard nodes. The UK sure as hell is not. The Torproject by the way is always looking for and decommissioning malicious Tor nodes, so the risk to any one user is low.

The usual way to attack a Tor user is to get them to connect to Tor to destination site you have compromised with javascript ON, then send a malware installer to the real target's computer. The installer then downloads a rather standard payload that tells the computer to phone home on a non-Tor connection. The widely reported 2013 incident used a Windows-only payload, today they probably add iOS and Android. Stock android that is. If it was reasonably practical for cops to see through Tor they would not put so much effort in seeing around it instead.

Things like the Silk Road takedown were very time consuming and labor-intensive, and required a lot of old fashioned exploits and unskilled admins at the targets. In other words, Tor, Signal, anything else running on an untrusted device also become untrusted. Silk Road was still brutally difficult for the cops, and that was a major, motivated investigation that unlike UK or Utah porn cops wasn't going to run into a stone wall of non-extraditability or lack of jurisidiction on someone with zero local "business presence."

BTW, do not use Google Fiber to connect to Tor to use Google privately, because if you do, Google can see your device directly(being your ISP), and see the one exit node they are talking to, allowing a confirmation attack.

[-] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

Y'see, back in the day parents were not technically literate because the world was mid-societal shift. "Protect the children" (because parents are unable to) had some justification.

Today, basic computer literacy is a survival skill in the UK. The level of literacy needed to track your own kid is not that high (or expensive to rent).

If you are letting kids use tech you don't understand, and are not willing to invest the time/money to track yourself, that's a you problem. It shouldn't become a me problem.

As for "yeah but what about smart kids", I've got some bad news for you. They will always find a way around ANYTHING you set up.

[-] ohlaph@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Exactly. I was 17 teaching my parents about internet shit. I wasn't smart, I still aren't, but I also wasn't. Anyway, the amount ov viruses I had to fix because of them downloading kenny_chesney.exe is.. baffling.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cupcakezealot 31 points 1 year ago

wear a mask of prince andrew. you can do fuck all and not get in trouble.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Just get a paper cutout of a PM for the camera, no?

[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago

Oi! You got a license for that pornography?

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago

Good, might stop the creepy fuckers watching it in parliament..
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/neil-parish-banged-up-tractor-porn-b2439583.html (I also remember and was going to link an earlier and unrelated report that was done about MPs watching porn in parliament, but that one story has drowned out all other results and it's too early for me to dig deeper)

In all seriousness, this is obviously a terrible idea for many reasons.

[-] tankplanker@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

They would just exempt themselves from it as they did with both reporting on people accessing porn using the HoP network and with the investigatory powers bill.

When they did report on it, it was a shockingly high number for a place of work: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/09/04/mps_binge_on_smut_theyre_trying_to_ban/

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

A whole lot of UK voters just became single-issue voters.

[-] RooPappy@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

I can't imagine a more unpopular idea in all of politics.

[-] jinarched@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

Start filling those hard drives bruv.

[-] TheFriendlyArtificer@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

I'm doing my part!

64Tib from the Tumblr and Reddit pornageddon. Most was legitimate cultural archiving, but a lot of other stuff got caught up as well.

[-] digdilem@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago

Isn't there already a website that shows cum faces?

[-] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 26 points 1 year ago
[-] Zahille7@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Now that's actually kinda fun

[-] wyzim@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Now, this is the type of content I browse Lemmy for

[-] Xer0@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 13 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Young adults involved in sex education told the BBC they believed having these kinds of protections in place would help prevent children being exposed to pornography.

Jack Liepa, director of the charity Sexpression, which sends university students into schools to run workshops about sex and relationships, said the Online Safety Act was a positive step, but not a complete solution.

"Any regulations that require hundreds of thousands of adult sites to collect significant amounts of highly sensitive personal information is putting user safety in jeopardy", it said.

Simon Migliano, head of research at VPN comparison site Top10VPN.com said "In Louisiana demand for VPNs more than tripled while in Utah it surged by 847% the day after the new age checks came into effect.

"The potential consequences of data being leaked are catastrophic and could include blackmail, fraud, relationship damage, and the outing of people's sexual preferences in very vulnerable circumstances," she said.

Ofcom chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes, talking to Women's Hour on BBC Radio 4, said operators of explicit sites would need to "balance getting the verification highly effective with preserving data privacy, which is a legal requirement."


The original article contains 891 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] ugh@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

The headline is very misleading. Porn companies are considering facial recognition as an option for validating age. Governments are putting more pressure on porn websites to keep minors away from the content, but it's very hard to thoroughly prove your identity online. A government issued photo ID is useless if you have nothing to compare it to visually. That's why many websites use bank/credit card info as opposed to an ID.

It is definitely a privacy concern if you worry about it being known that you watch porn, but I don't think it's right to fault the company.

[-] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Company? It's the UK communications regulator, Ofcom.

They found that many on low incomes don't have photocard ID when they rolled out voter ID despite opposition.

Considering no one seems capable of withholding data from motivated hackers, this could be quite horrific.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

Fuck it.

Maybe let kids watch porn.

That's your worst-case scenario, right? Minors with ready access to vanilla photographs of naked people, on above-board commercial websites? So what. Tell me this abusive horseshit is the only way to stop that and I'll still reject this abusive horseshit.

The pearl-clutching horrors imagined by conservative dullards are a mundane experience for millions of people, and relatively few of them become dog-fuckers or axe-murderers. Almost like a healthy libido is normal and 18 isn't the day you take the shrink-wrap off your genitals.

Teenagers masturbating is a non-event. It's as unremarkable and unpreventable as atomic decay. It will happen. Do you want it to happen to whatever quasi-erotica passes through the filter? Bugs Bunny in drag, beach volleyball, that one episode of their favorite show where everybody shrinks? Shoddy AOL filters probably made more furries than Disney ever did. AI's gonna twist kids right up. Tell me with a straight face that's better than real photos of fake tits.

By all means, keep actual smut off broadcast TV. Expect websites to put the weird stuff behind warnings. Don't sell porn to minors. But if your website doesn't take a credit card to visit, hey guess what, anyone can see it, and anyone will. Oh well. People who think that's the end of the world are lunatics who mean it literally.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

If it wasn't for porn, my middle school sex ed would have left me believing that sex was just a guy peeing in a girl's butt

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Btw I actually find humans ugly but love me some furries

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Like mid bust or before pre bust nutting?

[-] Gingerlegs@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago
[-] DmMacniel@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

It's Johnny Sins!

[-] uriel238 5 points 1 year ago

Can face scans be tricked by pictures or videos?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] drwho@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

I'm surprised they don't want to scan something else.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

TERF Island is fucked

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
285 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

32465 readers
322 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS