Discussion
These seem very strongly worded principles. I can't see this coming to pass (even if the law demands it).
Perhaps the actual legislation will be limited in scope.
> It must be impossible for anyone under the age of 18 to take, view or send nude images.
...
> The only way for any user to take, view or send nude images should be for an adult to verify their age through a robust age-assurance process.
@neil Oh for Pete's sake! Can these bellends fuck off already with their Handmaid's Tale cosplay?
Don't they have any adults in the room who tell them to knock it off?
@neil So every device will need to be associated with a verified adult ID, otherwise it will be stuck in child mode. Question then is, what will child mode specifically permit and forbid? On-device photo scanning seems to be a given. Web browsing restricted to a whitelist of child-friendly sites, perhaps?
@neil 'Two months ago we asked technology companies to solve a social problem that has existed for decades with technology, and we are disappointed that they have not managed this simple feat' is how I read the PM's quote.
Also very telling that they describe devices as 'their', referring to Google and Apple, not user's devices.
> Also very telling that they describe devices as 'their', referring to Google and Apple, not user's devices.
Isn't it just!
@neil The government/3rd parties must know who the nudes belong to. Clearly. It's the only way to be sure.
I actually feel ill thinking about it.
> I actually feel ill thinking about it.
Oddly enough, if I were to take nudes, it would have the same effect.
@neil I'm reminded of the legislatures that have, at various times, tried to define pi as 3. Nature didn't co-operate.
We're not *quite* in that territory yet, but we're close.
@neil It's impossible to determine whether a photo contains nudity without first taking it. The only way to comply is thus to disable the camera.
"Impossible" is an impossible threshold to meet.
For taking images?
Polaroid cameras? (Which were well loved for exactly this purpose when they first came out)
Digital cameras?
A laptop, a webcam, and a Linux distro?
None of these require age assurance.
@neil
Who says you and I will be able to install Linux on a laptop a few years from now, if people such as these have a say? (Similar discussions were already sparked based on some other legislations, e.g. in the US.)
https://infosec.exchange/@koehntopp/116147513633597565
Sure, one could impose an obligation to take all reasonable steps to achieve this on say, Apple, Microsoft, Google, and perhaps major smartphone manufacturers.
Perhaps on major messaging service providers?
Without client side scanning, I can't see how that would work on end to end encrypted services.
But "impossible"? No.
@neil A strictly on-device detection that strongly discourages taking/sharing of nude photos might not be a bad idea. It should obviously have an override for the inevitable false positives.
Note that this proposal is about "nude images".
Not "pornography", but merely "nude" photos and videos.
Not non-consensual nude imagery, but consensual nude imagery too.
It will, once again, be interesting to see if, or how, this proposal might impact the fediverse.
Will it (purport to) impose obligations on fedi server operators?
And how much of one's body must be revealed for an image to be "nude"? Does it only apply if certain bits are visible? Am I nude if I am wearing a hat?
@neil Show me a child with a sufficient understanding of consent to make that distinction meaningful.
@neil do you think this could end up having implications for naturist clubs as well? Not images as such, but children seeing nude people. There are a lot of families with children at naturist clubs.
@neil I think it's an attempt to return to good old-fashioned British values - i.e. waterlogged porno mags in the bottom of hedgerows.
@neil the only way to achieve the stated ends would be to eliminate all photography, personal computers, and the Internet. And definitely smartphones.
@darkuncle @neil I’ve read the proposals here - the first version I saw indeed wouldn’t have excluded non-Internet connected digital or even film cameras; the second put some definitions on what was meant. Aside: this Baroness Cass again. Yes that Baroness Cass. I’ll see if I can find the details later.
I thought the UK's age of consent was 16? Why are they targeting 18?
Also... are horny teens going to try studying renaissance painting techniques to avoid digital oppression?
16 for sex, 18 for porn.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
@neil a thing I’ve learned to look for in statistics that are presented is where there’s gaps in the .gov page:
“The charity’s Report Remove service received just 19 sextortion reports in 2022. By 2025, that figure had risen to 394, highlighting the rapidly escalating threat facing young people online.”
Why are 2023 and 2024 missing here?