Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


UK Porn Block

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Easy-X
Super Spammer



Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:53 - 20 Jun 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's coming...

Yes! Yes!

It's definitely coming...

Oh yes! Bebe!!!

It's still coming...

YES! Almost there!!!!

It's gonna be a while longer, soz

Seriously, WTF?!
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ribenapigeon
Super Spammer



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:26 - 22 Jun 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
Is there anything, anything at all, that you two don't have to argue about? Rolling Eyes


Who sleeps in the wet spot? Laughing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

Easy-X
Super Spammer



Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:25 - 22 Jun 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well worth the wait Thumbs Up
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

lazy12
Derestricted Danger



Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:52 - 30 Jun 2019    Post subject: Re: UK Porn Block Reply with quote

Riejufixing wrote:
owl wrote:
You will be required to provide Age verification through either Passport, Driver License or Credit Card.


No-one in the UK posesses a "Driver License".


What’s that?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

lazy12
Derestricted Danger



Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:58 - 30 Jun 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jewlio Rides Again LLB wrote:
mpd72 CPT wrote:
Luckily we have a qualified legal expert (who feels the need to put initials after his name), to explain the legal aspects of it, when he’s not too busy doing his routine office admin job.


As opposed to putting the only test you were able to pass after yours? Laughing

Do you know any IT experts who could explain to the rest of us how we could get around it?


Might do a how to thread on getting around it if i actually see this getting enforced, been a software engineer for 6 years so it’s fairly simple to get around, for example US proxy/VPN..
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Easy-X
Super Spammer



Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:36 - 30 Jun 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

I posted a quick guide on Page 2 of this thread.
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:20 - 01 Jul 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

lazy12 wrote:

Might do a how to thread on getting around it if i actually see this getting enforced, been a software engineer for 6 years so it’s fairly simple to get around, for example US proxy/VPN..


Simply changing your DNS server will probably work. All UK government internet restrictions seem to be DNS server based.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Riejufixing
World Chat Champion



Joined: 24 Jun 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:26 - 16 Oct 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, they've given up on that idea, and they're groping around trying to think up another.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Nobby the Bastard
Harley Gaydar



Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:33 - 16 Oct 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riejufixing wrote:
Well, they've given up on that idea, and they're groping around trying to think up another.


Bromide in the water, now we're not having water standards inflicted on us by the eu.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:13 - 16 Oct 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riejufixing wrote:
Well, they've given up on that idea, and they're groping around trying to think up another.


People can now wank safely at night or in the office toilets without having to jump through excessive regulation.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:25 - 16 Oct 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yey, I can still watch smut. Dance!
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

owl
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Oct 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:35 - 16 Oct 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spectacular f*ckwittery from our fearless leaders once again

Quote:
The law was intended to prevent minors from accessing adult content, but its aims were defeated long before publication. Social media sites, like Twitter and Reddit, were exempted from the bill, despite the fact that it's very easy to find adult content on there. Compared to, say, an adult content website where the material is behind a paywall, and it was hard to understand the reasoning behind the law.

And the existence of one or two large registers of users who had paid money to view adult content was a civil liberties nightmare. The proposals were decried, from the get-go, by experts and pundits as technically unworkable and highly damaging to individual freedoms. Even sending a press release was bungled by the BBFC, which exposed the email addresses of over 300 journalists in talking about the news.

There were also concerns raised about the identity of the companies tasked with implementing the age identification system. Mindgeek, owner of Pornhub, was heavily criticized for both its business practices and the risk that it would gain monopoly power over rivals if it controlled access to their sites. Not to mention that the system, if tied to UK IP addresses, could be easily circumvented with the use of a VPN.

The UK has not given up on its plans to censor the internet, however, and is looking at a broader "regulatory regime." In her statement, Morgan addresses the exemption of social media sites, saying that regulators will have "discretion on the most effective means for companies to meet their duty of care." What that turns out to be is not yet clear, but it's likely to have similar chilling effects on civil liberties.


Ketchup - https://www.engadget.com/2019/10/16/uk-finally-abandons-its-unworkable-porn-block-plan
____________________
Observation is the greatest source of wisdom.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Sister Sledge
World Chat Champion



Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 07:53 - 17 Oct 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was doomed to fail from the start. Experts warned them. I wonder how much it cost tax payers for the whole farce?
____________________
CCM 404 DS
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

BTTD
World Chat Champion



Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:14 - 17 Oct 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anyone want the government to censor the internet?
Shouldn't government be there to serve the people, not control them?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:21 - 17 Oct 2019    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the latest in the long line of bills. We have previously discussed the RIPA, DRIP etc on here.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) Part III
Critics claim that the spectres of terrorism, internet crime and paedophilia were used to push the act through and that there was little substantive debate in the House of Commons. The act has numerous critics, many of whom regard the RIPA regulations as excessive and a threat to civil liberties in the UK. Campaign group Big Brother Watch published a report in 2010 investigating the improper use of RIPA by local councils.[3] Critics such as Keith Vaz, the chairman of the House of Commons home affairs committee, have expressed concern that the act is being abused for "petty and vindictive" cases.[4] Similarly, Brian Binley, MP for Northampton South has urged councils to stop using the law, accusing them of acting like comic strip detective Dick Tracy.[5]

The Trading Standards Institute has been very critical of these views, stating that the use of surveillance is critical to their success (see TSI press release).

The "deniable encryption" features in free software such as FreeOTFE, TrueCrypt and BestCrypt could be said to make the task of investigations featuring RIPA much more difficult.

Another concern is that the Act requires sufficiently large UK Internet Service Providers to install technical systems to assist law enforcement agencies with interception activity. Although this equipment must be installed at the ISPs' expense, RIPA does provide that Parliament will examine appropriate funding for ISPs if the cost burden became unfairly high.


Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014
To allow the security services through the Secretary of State to retain the powers to require a public telecommunications operator to retain communications data in line with the purposes of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.[14]
The creation of a new privacy and civil liberties board to act as an independent watchdog overseeing the security services' use of these powers.[15]
To enforce the annual publication of a report of the amount of data intercepted under the regulations[15]
To restrict the length of time such data can be held to 12 months[15]
To ensure that the relevance of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is reviewed biennially[15]
To reduce the number of public bodies that can access the data collected under the legislation[15]
To limit the data which can be accessed under the regulations to only data that is relevant[15]
To provide for fresh legislation to supersede this legislation in 2016[15]
To ensure that such data can no longer be gathered solely for the interest of the UK economic wellbeing[15]
To appoint a diplomat to negotiate data transfers of such information with the United States.[15]

Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (Snoopers charter)
introduced new powers, and restated existing ones, for UK intelligence agencies and law enforcement to carry out targeted interception of communications, bulk collection of communications data, and bulk interception of communications;[35][36][37][38]
created an Investigatory Powers Commission (IPC) to oversee the use of all investigatory powers, alongside the oversight provided by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The IPC consists of a number of serving or former senior judges. It combined and replaced the powers of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Intelligence Services Commissioner, and Chief Surveillance Commissioner;[39][40]
established a requirement for a judge serving on the IPC to review warrants for accessing the content of communications and equipment interference authorised by a Secretary of State before they come into force;[41]
required communication service providers (CSPs) to retain UK internet users' "Internet connection records" – which websites were visited but not the particular pages and not the full browsing history – for one year;[42]
allowed police, intelligence officers and other government department managers (listed below) to see the Internet connection records, as part of a targeted and filtered investigation, without a warrant;[43]
permitted the police and intelligence agencies to carry out targeted equipment interference, that is, hacking into computers or devices to access their data,[44] and bulk equipment interference for national security matters related to foreign investigations;[45]
placed a legal obligation on CSPs to assist with targeted interception of data, and communications and equipment interference in relation to an investigation; foreign companies are not required to engage in bulk collection of data or communications;[32]
maintained an existing requirement on CSPs in the UK to have the ability to remove encryption applied by the CSP; foreign companies are not required to remove encryption;[32]
put the Wilson Doctrine on a statutory footing for the first time as well as safeguards for other sensitive professions such as journalists, lawyers and doctors;[32]
provided local government with some investigatory powers, for example to investigate someone fraudulently claiming benefits, but not access to Internet connection records;[32]
created a new criminal offence for unlawfully accessing internet data;[32]
created a new criminal offence for a CSP or someone who works for a CSP to reveal that data has been requested
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:00 - 21 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riejufixing wrote:
Well, they've given up on that idea, and they're groping around trying to think up another.

"Tech companies launch legal action to force Government to bring in under 18s porn ban

Tech companies have launched legal action to force the Government to bring in the porn age ban, in a move supported by children’s charities.

Four age verification companies lodged a judicial review at the High Court Thursday challenging the Culture Secretary’s decision to shelve the scheme to impose age checks on all porn sites viewed in the UK.

The Telegraph understands the companies are arguing the decision was an “abuse of power” as the move had been approved by parliament. They are also claiming damages, understood to be in the region of £3 million, for losses sustained developing age verification technology.

The age verification scheme was initially passed as part of the Digital Economy Act in December 2018 and mandated that all adult sites had to have age checks proving UK users were over 18. However, its implementation was repeatedly delayed throughout 2019.

In October, Culture Secretary Baroness Nicky Morgan announced she was suspending the age check scheme and would look to incorporate it into proposed online harms legislation that aims to create a new online regulator. The Government has said it aims to publish draft legislation this year, but it could take two to three years before the regulator is up and running.

At the time the secretary of state said she wanted to look at closing a loophole that would have allowed minors to still view pornography on social media sites.

The four companies behind the judicial review - AgeChecked Ltd, VeriMe, AVYourself and AVSecure - are arguing the secretary of state only had power to choose when the scheme came into force, not scrap it in the form passed by Parliament.

The legal action has been backed by the Children’s Charities’ Coalition for Internet Safety (CCCIS), which represents UK children's organisations."

Laughing

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/16/tech-companies-launch-legal-action-force-government-bring-18s/
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Riejufixing
World Chat Champion



Joined: 24 Jun 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 00:18 - 22 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste: "The four companies behind the judicial review - AgeChecked Ltd, VeriMe, AVYourself and AVSecure - are arguing the secretary of state only had power to choose when the scheme came into force, not scrap it in the form passed by Parliament"

Wow, they're grasping. I wonder whether they will get any "compo". Looking at this:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-10-17/debates/C743945F-9F9F-48E5-9064-707189D07846/OnlinePornographyAgeVerification

I suspect not.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Easy-X
Super Spammer



Joined: 08 Mar 2019
Karma :

PostPosted: 01:11 - 22 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

And in other news: foxes band together to sue farmer for access to the hen house Laughing
____________________
Husqvarna Vitpilen 401, Yamaha XSR700, Honda Rebel, Yamaha DT175, Suzuki SV650 (loan) Fazer 600, Keeway Superlight 125, 50cc turd scooter
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Sister Sledge
World Chat Champion



Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:47 - 22 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hang on.
People can do rude consensual things with each other at age 16 (in the UK) but not watch it on a screen until they're 18?
Does that mean 16 and 17 year olds need to close their eyes when doing it??
____________________
CCM 404 DS
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:51 - 22 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sister Sledge wrote:
Hang on.
People can do rude consensual things with each other at age 16 (in the UK) but not watch it on a screen until they're 18?
Does that mean 16 and 17 year olds need to close their eyes when doing it??


Basically: It's because the American age of consent is 18, and US law ~ international law when it comes to the internet.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Riejufixing
World Chat Champion



Joined: 24 Jun 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:08 - 22 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sister Sledge wrote:
People can do rude consensual things with each other at age 16 (in the UK) but not watch it on a screen until they're 18?
Does that mean 16 and 17 year olds need to close their eyes when doing it??

If one of the pair (or more) do rude things with each other they must not make any sort of pictures, photographic or otherwise, or video, of the under 18 person or that's "child pr0n" (unless they're married & it's for their own use) and they can be done for it. So can anyone whose computer or other storage system (sketchbook, for instance). So can anyone who transmits or otherwise shares such images. There are few defences in law.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:49 - 22 Jan 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riejufixing wrote:
Sister Sledge wrote:
People can do rude consensual things with each other at age 16 (in the UK) but not watch it on a screen until they're 18?
Does that mean 16 and 17 year olds need to close their eyes when doing it??

If one of the pair (or more) do rude things with each other they must not make any sort of pictures, photographic or otherwise, or video, of the under 18 person or that's "child pr0n" (unless they're married & it's for their own use) and they can be done for it. So can anyone whose computer or other storage system (sketchbook, for instance). So can anyone who transmits or otherwise shares such images. There are few defences in law.


The punishments for it are pretty weak. Also you can still be convicted if they are over 18, but "look" young and the court thinks they are under. It's a pointless law because a serious pedo would just stick their child porn on a cloud service and then access it via TOR.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:30 - 05 Jun 2020    Post subject: Reply with quote

BorisSutherland wrote:
Boof it!

Shocked
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 3 years, 297 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.10 Sec - Server Load: 0.24 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 142.73 Kb