[News] Age verification ?

[BBassic]

Couple of interesting things to know about this:

The system being used to carry out age verification, AgeID, was developed by a company called Mindgeek. Mindgeek also own Pornhub and YouPorn.
Margot James, Minister of State for Digital and the Creative Industries, who is championing this bill has voted for greater mass surveillance in the past.
An email press release sent out by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to 300 people was sent in such a way that exposed every single one of those email addresses (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47962405)

So, not only is the whole age verification system being owned by the company behind two of the biggest porn sites around pretty f**king shady but the very real fears of data breaches have all but been confirmed by a f**king press release talking about the whole thing.

It's madness. Utter madness.

 

[Gazwag]

Going to have a big impact on the gambling industry as well and probably piss a lot of people off. You won't be able to have a bet or withdraw any cash until your account is verified. Even free competitions such as super six will be affected.

Its happening more and more already, although not with the big boys B365, Laddys, WH etc yet but the view is verification will be needed to open an account soon with everybody. I had to do one this week and it was quite easy as I could use my phone to take photos of the documents and upload them direct to the website.

 

[Arthur]

Its happening more and more already, although not with the big boys B365, Laddys, WH etc yet but the view is verification will be needed to open an account soon with everybody. I had to do one this week and it was quite easy as I could use my phone to take photos of the documents and upload them direct to the website.

Well yes and no. The law still applies to all of the big boys, they just have a bit more change to throw at the problem to make it easier for the customer.

I work for one of your aforementioned companies and you are right we can pay for companies to verify our data and the positive response rate is pretty high. However we still have a large chunk of customers (in the hundreds of thousands) that need to be verified manually.

 

[beorhthelm]

Couple of interesting things to know about this:

The system being used to carry out age verification, AgeID, was developed by a company called Mindgeek. Mindgeek also own Pornhub and YouPorn.
Margot James, Minister of State for Digital and the Creative Industries, who is championing this bill has voted for greater mass surveillance in the past.
An email press release sent out by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to 300 people was sent in such a way that exposed every single one of those email addresses (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47962405)

So, not only is the whole age verification system being owned by the company behind two of the biggest porn sites around pretty f**king shady but the very real fears of data breaches have all but been confirmed by a f**king press release talking about the whole thing.

It's madness. Utter madness.

i note the data leak comes from the government department, not the business providing the age verification. to be fair, having age verification from business linked to age restricted sites makes a lot of sense, they have a strong interest in good service and maintaining privacy. however as i understand it they AgeID doesnt hold any data on you though, another 3rd party service does that.

the concern should be what will be next. betting, then may be alcohol, then video/film, games, etc. now the means are in place the government could extend age verification to other services. eventually so many will be verified that anyone underage will be able to use an adults account to verify. pointless.

 

[Audax]

Will be interesting to see exactly how this is being implemented. Done right, it should work.

Not exactly a new idea: Australia has had "at the content provider" age verification laws in place for well over 20 years (in the mid-90's, through the simple expedient of requiring a credit card be registered, but I'm sure it's evolved since then).

Historically, the government has required the network provider (your ISP or phone network operator) to handle the age verification. That's proven to be the wrong approach for a number of reasons, one of which is how easy it is to use a VPN (in fact, you don't even need a VPN - there's a couple of very easy options to bypass the age related content blocks via mobile devices) to hide the true destination site from the network operator. The only solution to enforcing age verification is to require the content provider to verify age when they receive the request to serve the content. That removes the VPN issue, as the content provider categorically knows that age restricted content is being requested regardless of whether the request comes direct or via VPN.

The other plus side of sticking the responsibility on the content provider is that it will now be the content provider who will be receiving any penalties for failing to prevent minors viewing their content. That will provide for them a significant incentive to self-police, as long as the potential penalties are a) big enough to not be absorbed as a "cost of doing business" and b) actually enforced by the regulator.

 

[Audax]

There is absolutely no way it can be done right, or work. It's an idiotic idea devised by people who don't understand technology.

It is almost effortless to make yourself appear that you are from another country on the internet.

If it were in any way possible, illegal football streams would have disappeared many years ago, as would other illegal downloading such as films, TV & music.

It may change the way people (inc. kids) view porn, but it is simply going to divert them away from the mainstream sites, that's all it will achieve.

It cannot be any worse than the current system. Believe me - the current system is pointless. I work for a telecoms company, and a couple of years back I was involved in a project related to these changes. Trust me on this: the existing system (reliant on telecoms companies to do the filtering) is broken beyond belief and cannot be enforced. The responsibility for verifying age *must* be shifted onto the content providers. This is a first step, and I have no doubt it will need to be refined and updated over time, but we simply cannot continue with the current approach.

 

[A1X]

Government that can’t make its own MPs support it genuinely believes it can stop teenagers from *******

https://newsthump.com/2019/04/18/go...-believes-it-can-stop-teenagers-from-*******/

 

[beorhthelm]

It cannot be any worse than the current system. Believe me - the current system is pointless....

what your saying is, current method (in AU?) is poor so anything is better. well this isnt it, other than shift responsibility it doesnt do anything substantial to address the "problem". its just an inconvenience that is trivial to work around.

 

[banjo]

God it’s gonna be embarrassing when BG comes on asking for advice on how to hack on to porn sites.

 

[BBassic]

i note the data leak comes from the government department, not the business providing the age verification. to be fair, having age verification from business linked to age restricted sites makes a lot of sense, they have a strong interest in good service and maintaining privacy. however as i understand it they AgeID doesnt hold any data on you though, another 3rd party service does that.

the concern should be what will be next. betting, then may be alcohol, then video/film, games, etc. now the means are in place the government could extend age verification to other services. eventually so many will be verified that anyone underage will be able to use an adults account to verify. pointless.

That's possibly more concerning isn't it?

You input sensitive data into AgeID - first potential failure / breach point.
They then provide that to a 3rd party - second potential failure / breach point.
The data is stored on a server somewhere by this 3rd party - third potential failure / breach point.

Even the big boys of big data have data breaches; my confidence that this stuff won't end up being sold somewhere is lower than my confidence in us getting a result against Wolves.

 

[Gazwag]

God it’s gonna be embarrassing when BG comes on asking for advice on how to hack on to porn sites.

He's ahead of the game

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?359783-VPN-is-it-beneficial

 

[beorhthelm]

That's possibly more concerning isn't it?

You input sensitive data into AgeID - first potential failure / breach point.
They then provide that to a 3rd party - second potential failure / breach point.
The data is stored on a server somewhere by this 3rd party - third potential failure / breach point.

Even the big boys of big data have data breaches; my confidence that this stuff won't end up being sold somewhere is lower than my confidence in us getting a result against Wolves.

theres only one potential risk, as the 3rd party would be responsible for where/how the data is stored. these are companies that do this for their living, a risk yes but low. they hold your verification document then pass back token to the AgeID, so the only data they should hold is the email address you give and confirmation of over 18.

 

[GOM]

Going to have a big impact on the gambling industry as well and probably piss a lot of people off. You won't be able to have a bet or withdraw any cash until your account is verified. Even free competitions such as super six will be affected.

Oh dear, how will we possibly cope !

Just take each day as it comes and although its going to be rough I'm sure you'll make it through.

I will have no problem whatsoever coping, however 'someone' appeared to be quite concerned for the gambling industry.

 

[BBassic]

theres only one potential risk, as the 3rd party would be responsible for where/how the data is stored. these are companies that do this for their living, a risk yes but low. they hold your verification document then pass back token to the AgeID, so the only data they should hold is the email address you give and confirmation of over 18.

Yeah, I'm a database engineer by trade so aware of the tech.

I'm just naturally cautious around data generally and especially personally identifiable data.

Back to Dvds and top shelf rags for me I reckon.

 

[jamie (not that one)]

About time the country focussed its attention on stopping teenagers from tugging one off

 

[Arthur]

I will have no problem whatsoever coping, however 'someone' appeared to be quite concerned for the gambling industry.

If you came on to NSC tomorrow and Bozza told you that you couldn't post until you'd proven who you were even though you've already posted 2304 times in the past it would piss you off a bit no? That's basically what is happening with unverified users on gambling/gaming sites. Those users won't be able to deposit, withdraw or place bets/play games.

You clearly have an axe to grind with the gambling industry which is your prerogative however not really sure why you feel you need to grind that axe simply because I pointed out other industries aside from porn companies are affected by the incoming regulation.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Will be interesting to see exactly how this is being implemented. Done right, it should work.

Not exactly a new idea: Australia has had "at the content provider" age verification laws in place for well over 20 years (in the mid-90's, through the simple expedient of requiring a credit card be registered, but I'm sure it's evolved since then).

Historically, the government has required the network provider (your ISP or phone network operator) to handle the age verification. That's proven to be the wrong approach for a number of reasons, one of which is how easy it is to use a VPN (in fact, you don't even need a VPN - there's a couple of very easy options to bypass the age related content blocks via mobile devices) to hide the true destination site from the network operator. The only solution to enforcing age verification is to require the content provider to verify age when they receive the request to serve the content. That removes the VPN issue, as the content provider categorically knows that age restricted content is being requested regardless of whether the request comes direct or via VPN.

The other plus side of sticking the responsibility on the content provider is that it will now be the content provider who will be receiving any penalties for failing to prevent minors viewing their content. That will provide for them a significant incentive to self-police, as long as the potential penalties are a) big enough to not be absorbed as a "cost of doing business" and b) actually enforced by the regulator.

No it doesn't. Unless the whole world is signed up to the same rules.

It's a completely pointless plan and worryingly unsafe. How many stupid people are actually going to give their credit card / other personal details to "AgeID" which is run by the major porn sites? The potential for data breach / blackmail etc is enormous.

Anyone with any sense will just use a VPN (if they aren't already) and teenagers are probably the most savvy about such things.

The government has tried to censor the internet before. As mentioned, like prohibition, it doesn't work and creates more problems than the one it's trying to solve. This just smacks of the usual political bullshit of "seeing to be doing something" when there is no way it will work.

Educate your kids about porn and staying safe on the internet. That's the only solution rather than nanny state rubbish like this.

 

[blue-shifted]

So I don’t understand this

Just say for the sake of argument I was the sort of person interested in viewing the content of these sites, then suppose I was the sort of person who visited multiple sites, several times every day, would I need to verify myself every time I visited a new site? It sounds very time consuming and likely to break concentration. Or is it more like, I would be able to verify myself once on my PC and then I’d be able to view whatever content I wanted whenever?

Oh yes, horrified by the data protection issues.

 

[GOM]

If you came on to NSC tomorrow and Bozza told you that you couldn't post until you'd proven who you were even though you've already posted 2304 times in the past it would piss you off a bit no? That's basically what is happening with unverified users on gambling/gaming sites. Those users won't be able to deposit, withdraw or place bets/play games.

You clearly have an axe to grind with the gambling industry which is your prerogative however not really sure why you feel you need to grind that axe simply because I pointed out other industries aside from porn companies are affected by the incoming regulation.

I have no axe to grind at all, I have a very pleasant relationship with the gambling industry and will not bat an eyelid if they ask for verification of my age. If, however the measures prevent a few minors from becoming gambling addicts or accidentally coming across porn then so be it.

As an adult I am asked for my age or DOB for many things, driving licence or passport. I am not ashamed of it or concerned one iota. You appear to be.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Couple of interesting things to know about this:

The system being used to carry out age verification, AgeID, was developed by a company called Mindgeek. Mindgeek also own Pornhub and YouPorn.
Margot James, Minister of State for Digital and the Creative Industries, who is championing this bill has voted for greater mass surveillance in the past.
An email press release sent out by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to 300 people was sent in such a way that exposed every single one of those email addresses (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47962405)

So, not only is the whole age verification system being owned by the company behind two of the biggest porn sites around pretty f**king shady but the very real fears of data breaches have all but been confirmed by a f**king press release talking about the whole thing.

It's madness. Utter madness.

I think they own more than those two, don't they? Heard an interview with Richard Herring and a guy who had written about the industry. Think he said one guy owns 90% of the sites.