I don’t know why parental responsibility to supervise children online needs to be shifted over to websites.
You’d think it would be simple. If you asked most parents if they’d let their kids run around a mall or supermarket unsupervised, most would say no. So why are they fine with doing just that on the internet?
Will you see computers are new (been around for over 30 hears) and confusing and require too much effort to understand, so I won’t bother.
deleted by creator
If someone had thought of the children, they’d have realised that they probably know more than the people in charge of making these decisions.
Couldn’t we just then go to Wikipedia via VPN if this actually happened? Even “age-gated” websites would be able to be accessed via a VPN.
You could just search “how to access uk age-gated websites” and there’ll likely be a guide.
Whoever came up with this idea is a moron
The UK government and technically inept internet legislation, name a more iconic combo.
Uk goverment and laptops with state secrets
Ridiculous, the UK government doesn’t have any laptops filled with state secrets… they’ve all been left on trains by now.
I think we issue leappads now 70% have somehow leaked state secrets the other 30% have been infected with porn
They’ll be going after VPN’s next. “Online safety” is just a political football to be kicked around.
The idea is moronic, but the blame lies at the feet of Christian conservatives who vote with their feelings. All of the moral panics of the past several decades have emotive and religious roots.
Another thing to point out, Sunak had one foot out of this country before he became PM, he wouldn’t have to know the deleterious effects of any of his or his predecessors actions.
I think you’re spot on. I’m also deeply concerned by the way so many news organisations seem to be painting it as a good thing or necessary.
The ineptitude of the government is what gives me hope, it seems like every year there’s something like this but nothing ever comes of it. Sometimes they’re “banning encryption”, sometimes there’s some idea of internet filters, nothing ever comes of it. They don’t have the intelligence to come up with anything workable.
Yes, it’s often bluster, but there are just as many ideologues in government as there are in the general public. They come out strong with policies like this because they need to present as a government that would take the action their voters want, if only it wasn’t for those lefty lawyers!
Cameron did it with the wholly ineffective porn block. He begged the biggest ISPs to block porn and settled at making it opt in. Ostensible, but still a victory to the socially conservative voters he was targeting.
I’m waiting for them to go after personal VPNs and Tor. I’m surprised they haven’t already.
I use a business VPN which allows me to securely connect to my works network using only my work equipment. All legit.
I host my own VPN at my home so I can connect into my network while out and about. All legit.
I then do sometimes use a VPN for bypassing regional restrictions. This is the one I assume they would target but I don’t understand how.
Surely they can only ban the use of it and not the technology. It would only add to a list of crimes to somebody the police has been targeting already. A bit like in my local area where the only people charged with illegally using an electric scooter are drug dealers.
Whoever came up with this idea is a moron
I’m actually glad that they’re a moron. They’d be terrifying if they were even slightly compotent.
We can’t just rely on that. We need to fight politically or get into a right old mess. Laws need to enforceable, not only selectively enforceable.
Millions will just use a VPN, but if there is an MP the media wants gone, “MP found on darkweb!”. We all know Gove and others are coke heads, but at the moment, no drug charges are brought. But you can bet some poor kid, especially if ethnic, if caught by police doing coke, will have the book thrown at them. Laws need to universally enforced or they make an ass of the law.
I’ve given up trying to keep track of all these schemes.
Each one filled with more pie-in-the-sky nonsense that will never pass, all so the government of the day can go “well, we tried, but Elitist Technoboffins and Openly Gay Olympic Fencers won’t let us.”
Same with this Rwanda immigrant crap.
This bill needs to be killed. It’s just more surveillance wrapped in saving the kids.
I’ve had people say to me “But what if you’re partner was attacked, you would be glad that CCTV/message snooping was there” when debating these topics.
I’m not going to lie, that’s hard to argue against, I would if it helped catch them, but I’d rather it didn’t happen in the first place. I don’t know where I’m going with this…
The uk legaladvice subreddit was a great example of why CCTV is absolutely useless.
The police often just won’t retrieve it. Either because they have a bunch of other cases they think are a higher priority, or there is too much footage to go through.
When they do eventually motivate themselves to go retrieve it, it has either been overwritten or doesn’t show what you need.
Yes, absolutely.
Some friends and I were attacked at a taxi rank on a busy high street many years ago. 3 were stabbed/slashed with a bottle and we all had a night in A&E. One has permanent face scars from it.
CCTV showed them getting into a taxi, the taxi driver was found and said they dropped them off at a petrol station.
The police had all that info and got the CCTV from the petrol station, and still couldn’t/didn’t identify them.
I’m not sure that’s broadly true, given the number of prosecutions where CCTV is given as evidence.
I’ve no doubt the examples you give are true, and that it happens far too often, but that’s not the same as saying cctv is useless.
The original purpose of the police was crime prevention. They should be out on the beat, not sitting in the office staring at screens. Having police wandering around deters crime.
Really? That sounds like the sort of claim that could do with some evidence to back it up.
First principle: “To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.”
The original purpose of the police was to catch escaped slaves and bust unions from establishing safer and better working conditions. Not joking.
https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-modern-day-policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Development_of_modern_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States#Union_busting_with_police_and_military_force
You’re on a UK community here buddy. We had police before the USA was founded. Your link literally says USA policing was based on the british model.
It’s another piece of unworkable legislation that tries to use fear to give a government a rather nebulous open-ended tool for online censorship. They’ve been trying to make age verification for porn sites a thing for decades and that hasn’t happened yet.
Yes. And there’s literally nobody calling for it other than a tiny number of Parenting and Religious pressure groups. Massive waste of government time and our money.
