The US has a similar version of that law sans the moderation reports where platform owners are liable for content posts on the platform. Passed by the Trump admon of course under the guise of stopping child pron.
Hate to be a broken record but is this still the same government that is led by a man who was knighted after signing-off, in 2009, on stopping investigations into a child molester named Jimmy Savile who had been at the forefront of the BBC for over 4 four decades?
Knighted by the Queen in 2014, who had, at her funeral, Phillip Schofield - a former children TV presenter for the BBC prior to being later found to have been grooming a minor from Manchester - skip the massive queue to grieve her passing with the nation. All narrated by Huw Edwards, the BBC's most senior news presenter.
Following her death, the BBC had this same chief news presenter at the coronation of King Charles III - who got the privilege of seeing the King in a sacred state of undress behind a curtain due to ancient traditions. The same Huw Edwards who pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children prior to his resignation from the BBC, all taking place during this period of time?
Is this government, which taxes its citizens for access to the BBC, also trying to make YouTube adopt BBC and Channel 4 viewing into its framework by law?
This government which is implicated, however tenuously or otherwise, in a mass cover-up of institutionalised child sexual abuse and its broadcast, in various forms, punish law abiding citizens all while actual sexual assaults are taking place and not being investigated properly because it would be seen as 'racist' to note that incoming cultures haven't acclimatised themselves to the laws of the land they seek to become citizens of. This government, of the continuing unelected bureaucratic framework enabling it, which managed to lose all WhatsApp messages related to the management of Covid-19 which accounts for mass fatalities and ongoing effects beyond, is telling its citizens what they can or cannot watch because a child might see it?
Hate to break this to the limies; but the UK is cUcKed.
Are they? I was under the impression they're written by people with an understanding of technology for the people in charge with no understanding of technology.
Most people won't bother to learn. Those that do could be blocked with in-browser or in-site protection. Some sites won't let you download an image or a video, they could just cooperate with winblows/apple to make sure OS blocks capture of certain material.
here's the thing, if you're viewing it on a website then it's in your RAM. if it's in your RAM, it can be moved to your hard drive. unless they want to encrypt your ram, thus slowing down the entire PC because it has to encrypt and decrypt everything, there's no way to prevent people from doing this.
also, desktop level screen captures don't care about the running program, browser or otherwise. they'll capture whatever's rendered to your monitor. unless they want to intercept what's rendered to your monitor, there's no way to prevent people from capturing this data and storing it.
Applies to user-to-user services that are "medium" or "high" risk with at least one relevant "harm" or with more than 700,000 monthly users or file-storage/sharing sites or identify a high risk of grooming.
First off, those definitions are probably never going to be made clear so that the rules can be implemented at whim on targets those in charge dislike for whatever reasons.
Second, "easy" loophole would be to just cap how many users you can have under 700k. This will of course likely change when sites attempt to do this because the rule is that dumb people will try the loophole.
Detect or support the detection of content and files for illegal content to block it (including piracy);
They really think pirated software has some label on it that says "pirated", don't they? More and more it becomes clear just how technologically illiterate the ones pushing this are.
Detect or support the detection of content deemed "harmful to children";
Yet another definitions which will change "as needed" because something will happen those in charge will not want spreading. This will of course include certain political leanings, which I'm sure everyone here expects to see happen.
Sanction users who generate, upload or share "illegal" content or content that is "harmful".
This is going to be a mess regardless of anything else. Non-illegal content "deemed harmful" will be affected by this when it's convenient.
Set and record performance targets for content moderation.
Quotas are cancer.
Ban users who share, generate or upload CSEA and those who receive CSAM.
"Receive"? Really? That's not only impossible to avoid if something is suitably motivated enough but also easily opens themselves up to trolls sending them those very materials and making them liable under their own rules. Which they will never be held, naturally. This literally arms trolls.
if someone is assessed to be under the age required. it also deals with errors with current age verification
What about the errors where it flat out gets the age wrong and then bans someone forever? So far all the points about appeals don't seem to actually address this part of the problem these decisions are creating.
(such as those who used video game characters and MP's forged ID to be verified as an adult).
lol, that part about MP's forged IDs seems a little too specific.
All user-to-user services with a "high" risk of "grooming" or has at least a "medium" risk of grooming and have 7 million or more monthly UK users must either implement age verification or make itself child safe.
Is that 7 million unique users or could someone just write a script and DDOS a site into compliance? Also when is Reddit getting added to those lists?
It is also likely television in the UK will also have the watershed abolished so it aligns with online services.
"For your own safety", remember.
Allow a dedicated communication channel to allow law enforcement to contact the service during a crisis.
This, as with a lot of other requirements, are going to increase costs of sites which is why some have already simply decided to region-block the UK because the sites can't afford to handle this growing shitshow.
As usual, they have a several hundred page document of legalese indicating they've already decided what they want to do and the response form only asks about specific details of their proposal to prevent people from expressing opposition to the whole thing. In this case they have 60 questions and want you to send a document by email rather than use a web form, which I suspect is a further deterrent.
Nevertheless, you could write one paragraph explaining your views on the whole thing and copy-paste it for each question and presumably they will be required to at least read your answers even if they're not related to the specific question. Hopefully those of you in the UK can do this and they might pull some punches as they attempt to beat you.
This is probably the most dangerous thing listed.
It's a feature, not a bug.
Ah yes, performance quotas, because those have never led to quality drops in services when supply failed to meet demand. 🙄
Or led to false positives/false reporting/false flag operations
The US has a similar version of that law sans the moderation reports where platform owners are liable for content posts on the platform. Passed by the Trump admon of course under the guise of stopping child pron.
Hate to be a broken record but is this still the same government that is led by a man who was knighted after signing-off, in 2009, on stopping investigations into a child molester named Jimmy Savile who had been at the forefront of the BBC for over 4 four decades?
Knighted by the Queen in 2014, who had, at her funeral, Phillip Schofield - a former children TV presenter for the BBC prior to being later found to have been grooming a minor from Manchester - skip the massive queue to grieve her passing with the nation. All narrated by Huw Edwards, the BBC's most senior news presenter.
Following her death, the BBC had this same chief news presenter at the coronation of King Charles III - who got the privilege of seeing the King in a sacred state of undress behind a curtain due to ancient traditions. The same Huw Edwards who pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children prior to his resignation from the BBC, all taking place during this period of time?
Is this government, which taxes its citizens for access to the BBC, also trying to make YouTube adopt BBC and Channel 4 viewing into its framework by law?
This government which is implicated, however tenuously or otherwise, in a mass cover-up of institutionalised child sexual abuse and its broadcast, in various forms, punish law abiding citizens all while actual sexual assaults are taking place and not being investigated properly because it would be seen as 'racist' to note that incoming cultures haven't acclimatised themselves to the laws of the land they seek to become citizens of. This government, of the continuing unelected bureaucratic framework enabling it, which managed to lose all WhatsApp messages related to the management of Covid-19 which accounts for mass fatalities and ongoing effects beyond, is telling its citizens what they can or cannot watch because a child might see it?
Hate to break this to the limies; but the UK is cUcKed.
literally impossible. you have no control over what the other person's computer is doing.
Are they? I was under the impression they're written by people with an understanding of technology for the people in charge with no understanding of technology.
They kinda do.
enlighten me then. what prevents you from running any kind of screen capturing tool when accessing any YouTube video or twitch stream?
Most people won't bother to learn. Those that do could be blocked with in-browser or in-site protection. Some sites won't let you download an image or a video, they could just cooperate with winblows/apple to make sure OS blocks capture of certain material.
here's the thing, if you're viewing it on a website then it's in your RAM. if it's in your RAM, it can be moved to your hard drive. unless they want to encrypt your ram, thus slowing down the entire PC because it has to encrypt and decrypt everything, there's no way to prevent people from doing this.
also, desktop level screen captures don't care about the running program, browser or otherwise. they'll capture whatever's rendered to your monitor. unless they want to intercept what's rendered to your monitor, there's no way to prevent people from capturing this data and storing it.
First off, those definitions are probably never going to be made clear so that the rules can be implemented at whim on targets those in charge dislike for whatever reasons.
Second, "easy" loophole would be to just cap how many users you can have under 700k. This will of course likely change when sites attempt to do this because the rule is that dumb people will try the loophole.
They really think pirated software has some label on it that says "pirated", don't they? More and more it becomes clear just how technologically illiterate the ones pushing this are.
Yet another definitions which will change "as needed" because something will happen those in charge will not want spreading. This will of course include certain political leanings, which I'm sure everyone here expects to see happen.
This is going to be a mess regardless of anything else. Non-illegal content "deemed harmful" will be affected by this when it's convenient.
Quotas are cancer.
"Receive"? Really? That's not only impossible to avoid if something is suitably motivated enough but also easily opens themselves up to trolls sending them those very materials and making them liable under their own rules. Which they will never be held, naturally. This literally arms trolls.
What about the errors where it flat out gets the age wrong and then bans someone forever? So far all the points about appeals don't seem to actually address this part of the problem these decisions are creating.
lol, that part about MP's forged IDs seems a little too specific.
Is that 7 million unique users or could someone just write a script and DDOS a site into compliance? Also when is Reddit getting added to those lists?
"For your own safety", remember.
This, as with a lot of other requirements, are going to increase costs of sites which is why some have already simply decided to region-block the UK because the sites can't afford to handle this growing shitshow.
"Sharia law? No of course that's not what this is, why would you think such a thing?"
As usual, they have a several hundred page document of legalese indicating they've already decided what they want to do and the response form only asks about specific details of their proposal to prevent people from expressing opposition to the whole thing. In this case they have 60 questions and want you to send a document by email rather than use a web form, which I suspect is a further deterrent.
Nevertheless, you could write one paragraph explaining your views on the whole thing and copy-paste it for each question and presumably they will be required to at least read your answers even if they're not related to the specific question. Hopefully those of you in the UK can do this and they might pull some punches as they attempt to beat you.
The UKs speed run descent into theocratic authoritarian, islamist state is almost satire. We're it not true.
"Sounds good to me." el_hoovy
I'm sure he's masturbating furiously to this as we speak.
"do this and you will be upgraded from ceausescu's death to qaddafi's"