Talk for Article "UK push for ‘porn passes’ raises privacy and data concerns"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    This story gives some prominence to a response to the BBFC consultation jointly by the Open Rights Group and Pandora Blake, who runs a porn site. On her blog [ http://pandorablake.com/blog ] she reveals that “Over 500 people submitted a response using the tool [ https://action.openrightsgroup.org/strong-privacy-must-age-verification-tech ] provided by the Open Rights Group, emphasising the need for age verification tech to be held to robust privacy and security standards. I’m told that around 750 consultation responses were received by the BBFC overall, which means that a significant majority highlighted the regulatory gap between the powers of the BBFC to regulate adult websites, and the powers of the Information Commissioner to enforce data protection rules.” In other words, the majority of the BBFC responses were solicited by one group and as the web link makes clear, to support one particular point of view. Should this be mentioned somehow in the story?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      As a follow-up, Blake and the ORG are quoted as if they were experts. Does their opinion accurately reflect the consensus of expert opinion on such matters as the degree of harm caused to children by exposure to pornography?

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I really can’t see that this would prevent people below the age of 18 from accessing porn intentionally. As if a bunch of teenage boys wouldn’t be able to work around something like this.

    And, it may not do much to protect younger children, who probably shouldn’t be using the internet in the first place.

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Eyewash and distraction from the real child abuse happening all over the UK. This reeks of censorship, it will start with protecting the children and then terrorism, but we all know where this can lead. Essentially, they want all websites to be legally registered in every country so it can be monitored.

    This will create a balkanised and fractured web. The GDPR and now this.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Do you mean that this story is “eyewash and distraction”, or are you referring to the BBFC proposals? Who is the mysterious “they” who want these things? And do you have pointers to any experts or evidence that these things are happening?

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        The proposals naturally, why would the story be an eye-wash? The mysterious “they” are the people who are mooting proposals like this in spite of experts talking about the various risks to privacy involved along with the censorious turn that society will take if this was allowed to go through.

        Does having an opinion on current events require evidence or expert citations now???

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          No, but asserting that “they” want this that or the other does.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us