# UK Porn Restrictions Coming Soon



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Interesting to see the impact of this as I imagine there are many people who are not too keen on having their IDs tagged every time they visit a porn site. I would think using a VPN would be an easy way around this.



> The UK Government's ban on watching pornography without prior age verification will come into effect as of 15 July.
> 
> After that date, anyone wishing to access porn sites in the United Kingdom will have to have verified their age using a legitimate form of identification such as a credit card, driving licence, or passport.
> 
> ...


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

The politicians are dumber than the teenagers they are trying to restrict....
Maybe one of them owns a VPN software company?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

StillSearching said:


> The politicians are dumber than the teenagers they are trying to restrict....
> Maybe on of them owns a VPN software company?


Haha, would be funny if they did run VPN companies!


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

yes, use VPN and hide your ID...


----------



## Middle of Everything (Feb 19, 2012)

I think everyone is right.

That will be the next big story out of the UK. 

"In a surprising turn of events VPN usage in the UK is up 1000%"


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Technical solutions are a bad way to fix legal problems. Once a system is in place that requires some sort of verifiable ID on the internet, there are ways the government could block VPNs or other similar technology. 

I'm a big fan of privacy on line. Take this site for example - imagine someone running for office and the public finding out that their partner won't sleep with them or that they have ED, or some kink they discussed here. This information could last decades.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

This is an interesting topic. I'm not sure I know enough to advocate one way or the other, but I can understand the impetus behind it. I know technical solutions are almost certainly going to be woefully inadequate, especially because who can skirt cyber rules better than a tech savvy teenager?!

But think about it. A 15yo can't walk into the neighborhood bodega and buy a Playboy magazine. But he can get on his computer and see all sorts of **** that would make Hugh Hefner turn away. 

There's obviously a serious disconnect here.


----------



## In Absentia (Aug 21, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> This is an interesting topic. I'm not sure I know enough to advocate one way or the other, but I can understand the impetus behind it. I know technical solutions are almost certainly going to be woefully inadequate, especially because who can skirt cyber rules better than a tech savvy teenager?!
> 
> But think about it. A 15yo can't walk into the neighborhood bodega and buy a Playboy magazine. But he can get on his computer and see all sorts of **** that would make Hugh Hefner turn away.
> 
> There's obviously a serious disconnect here.



Agree, but there is also the big problem of potential data leaks... it's happened countless time in the UK.


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> This is an interesting topic. I'm not sure I know enough to advocate one way or the other, but I can understand the impetus behind it. I know technical solutions are almost certainly going to be woefully inadequate, especially because who can skirt cyber rules better than a tech savvy teenager?!
> 
> But think about it. A 15yo can't walk into the neighborhood bodega and buy a Playboy magazine. But he can get on his computer and see all sorts of **** that would make Hugh Hefner turn away.
> 
> There's obviously a serious disconnect here.


There is... it is called parental controls.

A UK law will not touch international domains...

If this really need to be a public service overseen by the national government, why not develop a filter that is offered to parents for this management... tax payers are going to end up paying for something, be it a law or a service.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Emerging Buddhist said:


> There is... it is called parental controls.
> 
> A UK law will not touch international domains...
> 
> If this really need to be a public service overseen by the national government, why not develop a filter that is offered to parents for this management... tax payers are going to end up paying for something, be it a law or a service.


Parents can't monitor teen activities 100% of the time. Never have been able to. 

The filter thing is also easily defeated. Or if a filter is actually effective at screening unwanted content, it also ends up screening plenty of legitimate content as well, or making it inordinately difficult to access. 

I've been through this three times and all my kids have turned out fine, so trust me, I'm not expecting the nanny state to parent my kids or do what I should be doing myself. My point is that as things stand, we're policing print and online media with completely different levels of effectiveness. I'm just looking for consistency, not a particularly strict or lax level of restrictiveness.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I can see it now. During the next election, the porn history of every candidate will be 'leaked' to the press. A brave new world.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

I think a big question as well, does this open up the gov't to take further steps to invade one's privacy.


----------



## syhoybenden (Feb 21, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> I think a big question as well, does this open up the gov't to take further steps to invade one's privacy.


THIS is exactly what it is all about. The end of freedom of speech. The end of freedom of thought. The end of freedom.

Porn is just their smarmy little excuse to take control of what once was free.


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Parents can't monitor teen activities 100% of the time. Never have been able to.
> 
> The filter thing is also easily defeated. Or if a filter is actually effective at screening unwanted content, it also ends up screening plenty of legitimate content as well, or making it inordinately difficult to access.
> 
> I've been through this three times and all my kids have turned out fine, so trust me, I'm not expecting the nanny state to parent my kids or do what I should be doing myself. My point is that as things stand, we're policing print and online media with completely different levels of effectiveness. I'm just looking for consistency, not a particularly strict or lax level of restrictiveness.


Of course not... just make best effort which is exactly what filtering is.

I do understand filtering, been managing it under government requirements since the induction of CIPA.

I don't advocate for either at a government level for a home, neither filtering nor online ID verification but in the UK, life is different than in America as they are used to big brother thus if they would build something, build something that would not take away the rights of adult citizens.

I monitored my children's surfing at home with two simple rules: Never delete your history, never repeatedly go to sites you know I would object you going to.

Worked fine.

Just stay checked in, but if the gov wants to get this deep, might as well start thinking what will come next.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

What does this topic have to do with sex in marriage?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Here is the difference:

If I walk into a store and buy a gay porn magazine, I might have to show an ID (if I were 40 years younger), but its not recorded. If I have to identify myself personally online, then there is a record of everything I've done. I have not faith at all that those records will be kept secure. 

We are still a society where there are things that a legal but extremely embarrassing and which could hurt someone's chances for election. Do you really want someone to leak information that some political candidate likes watching porn featuring well endowed black men? Or featuring schoolgirl outfits and spanking?

The same way I don't think most people want a record of what sex toys they buy, ,what size condoms they use, and how many they buy per year, what ED medication they take etc etc. to be public. 

I have no problem with proof of age on line, but I do have problem with recording identity. 






Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> This is an interesting topic. I'm not sure I know enough to advocate one way or the other, but I can understand the impetus behind it. I know technical solutions are almost certainly going to be woefully inadequate, especially because who can skirt cyber rules better than a tech savvy teenager?!
> 
> But think about it. A 15yo can't walk into the neighborhood bodega and buy a Playboy magazine. But he can get on his computer and see all sorts of **** that would make Hugh Hefner turn away.
> 
> There's obviously a serious disconnect here.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

uhtred said:


> Here is the difference:
> 
> If I walk into a store and buy a gay porn magazine, I might have to show an ID (if I were 40 years younger), but its not recorded. If I have to identify myself personally online, then there is a record of everything I've done. I have not faith at all that those records will be kept secure.
> 
> ...


I agree uhtred.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

I wonder as well, with the ID would you be able to view your history in some manner? if so, what if your SO got hold of your ID in order to see what you have been up to? Maybe they don't like the sites you were visiting before you were together, causes all kinds of issues, who knows?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

uhtred said:


> Here is the difference:
> 
> If I walk into a store and buy a gay porn magazine, I might have to show an ID (if I were 40 years younger), but its not recorded. If I have to identify myself personally online, then there is a record of everything I've done. I have not faith at all that those records will be kept secure.
> 
> ...


I understand that difference. I don't disagree. Nor do I disagree with the harm that comes with this kind of tracking. My ONLY point was that there is a huge difference in the efficacy of the prevention of such materials falling into the hands of minors. I HAVE NOT shown support or approval for the coming approach. I am only saying there is no consistency in preventing the proliferation of such material via different means.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

NobodySpecial said:


> What does this topic have to do with sex in marriage?


For some men, porn is the only sex they are apparently having in their marriage.:grin2:


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I'm mailing a few magnetic tapes full of gifs and mpegs to MattMatt ahead of time 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> For some men, porn is the only sex they are apparently having in there marriage.:grin2:


Oy.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

I think its very positive that the UK govt are trying to do something to stop the incredible damage that porn is having on children who watch it. 
Whether it works or not, at least its something.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> I think its very positive that the UK govt are trying to do something to stop the incredible damage that porn is having on children who watch it.
> Whether it works or not, at least its something.


They actually don't care, in my opinion, they simply want an excuse to track people.

Kids are a little too smart to be thwarted by this anyway.

Parents are still the first and best intervention.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

syhoybenden said:


> THIS is exactly what it is all about. The end of freedom of speech. The end of freedom of thought. The end of freedom.
> 
> Porn is just their smarmy little excuse to take control of what once was free.


Perhaps part of it is that the UK probably cannot collect taxes on most paid porn. And free porn is, well free. Once they control access to porn, the gov can start imposing 'sin' taxes on it.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

I think it is going to backfire greatly. I suspect no one will talk about it, but there will be a huge backlash. I may be wrong but I think you will have a very different government in a few years. Kind of like Prohibition and it's aftermath here in the US.


----------



## Real talk (Apr 13, 2017)

Will probably backfire somehow but I'm okay with it. Porn is WAY to accessible nowadays and it's everywhere, which isn't good considering how addictive it is. It's not popular to say but porn is terribly bad for us and young people need to be insulated from it.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

sokillme said:


> I think it is going to backfire greatly. I suspect no one will talk about it, but there will be a huge backlash. I may be wrong but I think you will have a very different government in a few years. Kind of like Prohibition and it's aftermath here in the US.


The challenge is for a political party to come up with an acceptable way of stating "if you elect us we will remove the porn tracking legislation". 

There is scope for change. As I recall it, in the last poll I saw 73% of the public here think the politicians in BOTH our main parties are incompetent and useless. We are at a point where it wouldn't take much to bring about change.


----------



## syhoybenden (Feb 21, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Perhaps part of it is that the UK probably cannot collect taxes on most paid porn. And free porn is, well free. Once they control access to porn, the gov can start imposing 'sin' taxes on it.



But it’s not really about the porn.

Nor is it about taxation and government (bloated) income.

It is the foot in the door to have everyone else having to deal with a Chinese-Style “internet”.
i.e. suppression of freedom of thought and expression and a loss of access to previously available information.

It is about the ruling class re-establishing their control of their narrative.

It is an historical event and it is bone-chilling.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

syhoybenden said:


> It is about the ruling class re-establishing their control of their narrative.


Yes, exactly; with the understanding that "the ruling class" no longer means posh people in mansions eating off silverware. It means people who believe they are entitled to rule. Which nowadays means people who did politics at university, who've never had a real job, who work in a "think tank" or as a "journalist" or "advisor" in a political institution. Those are now the ruling class. The Jeremys and Davids and Gordons and Tonys and Borises.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

syhoybenden said:


> It is the foot in the door to have everyone else having to deal with a Chinese-Style “internet”.
> i.e. suppression of freedom of thought and expression and a loss of access to previously available information.


Bear in mind, though, that most of us are already more effectively tracked than this porn thing will achieve. 
Compared to what Facebook, Google and Amazon know about most of us, this is small beer.


----------



## syhoybenden (Feb 21, 2013)

The internet was about the free exchange of information.

Tracking schmacking. Who cares?

It is about the loss of the free exchange of information. Information restricted. Communication restricted. History expunged. History re-invented.

Down the memory-hole with you now!


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> For some men, porn is the only sex they are apparently having in their marriage.:grin2:


I resemble that remark.
And it isn't apparent. It is actual.

As for the core topic, I agree that it is the record-keeping that troubles me. This is eerily like the Chinese social responsibility score. Of course, the UK government aren't using the information for that purposes. Yet. But they are creating the records upon which a less scrupulous administration could do so.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Make no mistake.

It's the tracking that will be specific to the personal info required at the porn sites that should be a concern. 

At best the contact list will at some point be sold for a profit. If one thinks it won't, just wait a few years as "policies" change.

At worst, some will be hacked.

Inevitable.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> They actually don't care, in my opinion, they simply want an excuse to track people.
> 
> Kids are a little too smart to be thwarted by this anyway.
> 
> Parents are still the first and best intervention.


 I cant agree, they have been trying for ages to find ways to tackle this vital issue.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Wasn't originally the plan to force all porn sites to use the .xxx domain. This should then make it much easier to filter / block.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> I cant agree, they have been trying for ages to find ways to tackle this vital issue.


Then you believe government has the answer and parents don't.

I have seen nothing to give confidence that the UK government can even manage the job they already are responsible for.

I haven't seen the U.S. government successfully legislate morality either.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Most definitely any government cannot, cannot, cannot legislate behavior/morality. 

Just look at the Smollett case if one thinks all laws would be applied equally. 

Certain groups in the US want to enslave the masses by having all become more and more dependent on government caretaking. 

Talk about absolute tracking. 

Be aware, the Soylent Green solution will never end well for the common man.

Try getting congress to find and pay for their own healthcare and retirement fund the same as the rest of America.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> What does this topic have to do with sex in marriage?


It can be confusing....

For those pursuing self exploration, porn often becomes the stimulant of choice and eventually becomes synonymous with the idea of masturbation. At some point the idea of one without the other just no longer seems to make any sense. Ask a guy in that scenario if he needs to look at porn because he wants to masturbate or is it that he needs to masturbate because he just looked at porn... and that question simply does not compute or make any sense what so over because they are both viewed as the same thing! It is like asking is if candy is sweet because of sugar or if sugar is sweet because it is found in candy. 

Then there are those above that go on to get married and end up in a sexless (or problematic) relationships, and porn becomes the only available substitute for discharging one's unrequited libido. 

So for many "Sex in Marriage" simply gets confused with "Porn" because that is all there is and the two merge into something inseparable.

Just is what it is! 

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## Music Lover (Feb 9, 2016)

Laurentium said:


> Yes, exactly; with the understanding that "the ruling class" no longer means posh people in mansions eating off silverware. It means people who believe they are entitled to rule. Which nowadays means people who did politics at university, who've never had a real job, who work in a "think tank" or as a "journalist" or "advisor" in a political institution. Those are now the ruling class. The Jeremys and Davids and Gordons and Tonys and Borises.


This is straying a long way from sex in marriage, but you are setting up men and women of straw so you can knock them down. The facts are readily accessible online.

Something approaching a third of UK MPs are drawn from the Professions and another 30% from business. Only 17% are described as Politician/political organisers and 5% publishers/journalists. 

It is clear that the vast majority of MPs have had ”real jobs”. In any case, it’s a good thing that some of them have studied politics and have previous experience in political organisations and the like. There’s no evidence that MPs have a sense of entitlement to rule. They have to get past local party selection procedures and be elected by the public. Then we scrutinise their every move. In no way could they be described as a ruling class.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> Then you believe government has the answer and parents don't.


I definitely don't think government has the answer. Hells no. But parents don't either. Whom are they trying to protect? The struggle to try and protect kids from bad parents is a losing proposition.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

NobodySpecial said:


> I definitely don't think government has the answer. Hells no. But parents don't either. Whom are they trying to protect? The struggle to try and protect kids from bad parents is a losing proposition.


Regardless of whether some, or many, parents don't interact with their kids, parents are the first and best defense.

The government could not really care less. I suspect many officials of eating their own young anyway.:wink2:


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> Interesting to see the impact of this as I imagine there are many people who are not too keen on having their IDs tagged every time they visit a porn site. I would think using a VPN would be an easy way around this.




Isn’t it being introduced around the same time as the law for compulsory disclosure of one’s browser history, on job applications?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

syhoybenden said:


> THIS is exactly what it is all about. The end of freedom of speech. The end of freedom of thought. The end of freedom.
> 
> Porn is just their smarmy little excuse to take control of what once was free.


How is my freedom to speak or think dependent on minors being able to view porn? 

Before the internet served porn, and minors weren't allowed to buy print porn or be admitted to X-rated movies, did people have freedom of speech?


----------



## syhoybenden (Feb 21, 2013)

Hellllloooooooo Spiny.

You force me to repeat myself ..... "Porn is just their smarmy little excuse to take control of what once was free."

Stop focusing on the porn! Porn is NOT the issue here!

Legality is the issue. Censorship is the issue. Government over-reach is the issue!!!!!!!

Please go and reread George Orwell's brilliantly prescient novel "1984". Published in 1949. It has all come to pass, and then some. Don't get hung up and quibble about details. The underlying themes are all there, are all here.

The man was a freaking genius! When you are done with 1984 I would assign you to read "Animal Farm". Would that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and all her little Millennial fans would read that novel, were they only capable of actually reading an entire book without spraining their little brains.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

syhoybenden said:


> Hellllloooooooo Spiny.
> 
> You force me to repeat myself ..... "Porn is just their smarmy little excuse to take control of what once was free."
> 
> ...


Actually porn is the issue in the proposal. As for the purported loss of freedoms, I asked you how this proposal will take away freedom of speech and/or thought, which you haven't answered. 

Ironically I always felt the people most insistent I read Orwell when I was 14 were the most anxious that I not see Barbara Eden's navel or other prurient filth.


----------



## syhoybenden (Feb 21, 2013)

There are none so blind.

Don't take it personally. You are not alone.

Sheep to the slaughter.


----------



## CatholicDad (Oct 30, 2017)

The overriding concern here is that kids need protected. Porn user privacy- I couldn't care less. If you think there's anonimity on the internet today, you'd be mistaken.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

NobodySpecial said:


> What does this topic have to do with sex in marriage?



Thank you. Here is the answer: 
The whole thing might be very good for those who watch porn. Now the only porn they watch would be of themselves. They would have to make some and store it on their computers at home since it is illegal to transmit porn in UK. So they would then watch themselves either together or individually. 

This means quality of sex will go up no end. A spouse will be able to ask the other if this or that was nicely delivered or not, and correct it in the next episode. 

For the first time, a lot of couples will be doing on camera sex and watching it together. 
It can only be a good thing.


----------



## Tony Conrad (Oct 7, 2013)

I don't know about that. Marriage and sex is private between my wife and I. Bringing cameras in for other people wouldn't help one's marriage I think.
I don't think that restricting porn will be a bad thing in the UK. It is a multi M$ industry. It would be nice to hit them where it hurts (although British TV can be very pornographic). One less thing to resist and I hope it improves marriages.
The real contradiction though is the UK governments obsession with Sodomy. Gay Marriage. Intriducing it in schools etc. Restricting porn sounds moral but their other stuff reveals the truth. I suspect there is a hidden motive going on.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Who gets to define what is moral? 





Tony Conrad said:


> I don't know about that. Marriage and sex is private between my wife and I. Bringing cameras in for other people wouldn't help one's marriage I think.
> I don't think that restricting porn will be a bad thing in the UK. It is a multi M$ industry. It would be nice to hit them where it hurts (although British TV can be very pornographic). One less thing to resist and I hope it improves marriages.
> The real contradiction though is the UK governments obsession with Sodomy. Gay Marriage. Intriducing it in schools etc. Restricting porn sounds moral but their other stuff reveals the truth. I suspect there is a hidden motive going on.


----------

