What's the Problem With Age Verification? By Jerry Barnett of Sex and Censorship
See article from sexandcensorship.org
Until the industry can initiate a practical age verification scheme
|21st April 2014
20th April 2014. See article from
Government censors have announced that legislation will be introduced by the end of 2014 that will require British adult websites to verify the age of visitors.
Government internet censors at the Department of Censorship, Media and Sport have
announced their intention to initiate legislation that will require age verification by credit card (not debit cards, which are used for the large majority of porn purchases). Alternatively visitors can provide highly personal details that are simply
best not provided to porn sites).
Unfortunately there is currently no other viable technology that allows viewers to conveniently and safely verify their age.
However Chris Ratcliff of TVX, speaking for the Adult Provider Network, an adult
trade group representing 30 adult companies, said that a system is being developed that will hopefully allow some level of security and privacy for viewers. It seems that age can be verified once, hopefully by a trusted party, and this will provide a
token that can be conveniently used to gain access to British adult websites.
Unfortunately this will not be available until the end of 2015.
In the meantime it looks likely that British adult websites will be hit impossibly hard, and that
British customers will be driven overseas, at least until the DCMS can come up with a practical way to try and stop this too,
Perhaps Brits would be advised to download enough porn in the next 8 months to last a lifetime...just in case.
Comment: Laughing at an Etonian Pillock
21st April 2014. From Alan
How is Cameron proposing to identify a British porn site? Many general sites use models/actors/actresses from several countries. A site based in
California that includes some pics/vids of British models is likely to laugh at the Etonian pillock.
Most sites price in US dollars and use foreign-based payment processors, most obviously CC BIll. All such processors promise
discretion, not indicating to credit card providers the nature of the service provided. One hopes they would tell Cameron to take a running jump.
The worst case scenario is that totally innocuous organizations will have payments
blocked by over-zealous twats like the idiot in Oxford who didn't know what a passion play is. Come to think of, that might actually be the BEST case scenario :-- if sanctimonious authoritarians succeed in stopping payments to a breast cancer
awareness campaign or researchers into erectile dysfunction, it would make censorship a laughing stock.
|9th April 2014
It's hard not to feel that there is witchhunt against small, independent, non-mainstream forms of pornography that often challenge assumed notions of normativity and gender roles
article from wired.co.uk
Internet censor wants us to type credit card details and personal ID information into dodgy foreign porn websites
|31st March 2014
28th March 2014. See article from
UK Video on Demand censor ATVOD has called for the law to be changed to require pornography sites to carry out age checks before granting access.
It said credit and debit card operators would be forbidden from processing payments from British
customers to sites that did not comply. It claimed that the matter was so urgent that it was critical the legislation is enacted during this Parliament .
To back up its demand, the body commissioned market research firm Nielsen Netview to
install equipment that monitored the online habits of 45,000 desktop PC and laptop users over the course of a month. The survey indicated that over the period:
- 6% of children aged 15 years or younger had accessed an adult website
- 5% of visitors to such sites had been under-18
- One website alone - Pornhub - had been visited by 112,000 boys in the UK aged between 12 and 17-years-old Of the
- 23% of those who had used the net over the month had visited an adult site Visitors to adult sites spent an average of 15 minutes looking at them during each visit and typically clocked up two-and-a-half hours of time in total
over the month
Atvod added that the survey probably underestimated the scale of the issue since smartphone and tablet use was not included in the figures.
The regulator already forces UK-based sites to carry out onerous and impractical age verification checks
before explicit photographs and videos can be viewed. This can be done by requiring valid credit card details (sorry debit card holders, these simply wont do) or other personal information that can be cross-referenced with the electoral roll or
another ID database. (or used for phishing or identity theft)
Sex and Censorship, a free speech campaign group, - said the move would prove ineffective.
It won't make any difference to the sites that give
all their videos away for free and sell advertising because they don't need credit card processing, said Jerry Barnett.
And some sites are already accepting bitcoin and other anonymous online payment systems. A clampdown on card
payments would just accelerate this trend.
Even if implemented, this measure would have no effect on the range of content available to British consumers.
It seems strange that ATVOD aren't considering the far
more practical solution of a central verification authority that is a bit more trustworthy (but not much with NSA and GCHQ snoopers) than a foreign porn site. Then for adult websites to enforce this external age verification without being able to monitor
people's personal details.
Perhaps ATVOD are happier to see websites suffocated by their impractical and dangerous rules than be allowed to thrive under a more efficient age verification scheme.
In the ATVOD press release ATVOD chair and
censorship advocate Ruth Evans claimed:
We do not advocate censorship.There is nothing in the ATVOD Rules which interferes with the right to provide sexually explicit material to an adult online.
of course that person doesn't hold a credit car. ..OR doesn't want to provide credit card details for a quick look round. ..OR... Doesn't want to risk ID theft or phishing by typing in dangerous ID details...]
Offsite Article: Empire Building
31st March 2013. See article from
ATVOD censoring porn to keep itself in a job, says campaigner
... Read the full article
Update: As if this
measure would really prevent young men from gaining access to porn
31st March 2013. Thanks to Alan
Where does ATVOD recruit idiots to work for it?
This idiocy about protecting children really pisses me off. When I was a hormonal post-pubertal lad, more than half a
century ago, I had no problem finding back-street newsagents with no qualms about selling me a mucky magazine. Are today's media-savvy young men and women going to be prevented from gaining access to porn, whatever ATVOD or control-freak parents say?
In any case, how would ATVOD ban payments? I've never yet encountered a porn site which asks you to pay directly to Filthy Films Inc. Payments are through processors like CC Bill, which guarantee discretion, so that if your vanilla
other half happens upon your Barclaycard bill he/she doesn't know that you're subscribing to Burning Bums Spanking. If they do somehow ban CC Bill, Verotel, etc. it will just be a gift to pirates with no interest in prohibiting access by young people.
Credit card companies look seek new laws to let them ban payment services to porn sites
See article from thetimes.co.uk
Three of the biggest payment handling companies have backed calls to cut off funds to hard-core pornographic websites that allow children access.
Visa, MasterCard and PayPal have agreed to help to lobby the Government for laws that would allow them to
refuse to process card payments to websites that do not have age restrictions, Peter Johnson, chief executive of the Authority for Television on Demand , said last night.
The VOD censor, ATVOD, has been arguing that the law would be a significant
step in stopping children being able freely to access porn. However with the amount of porn already sloshing around the world then this seems an unlikely outcome. However it will crucify smaller companies to try make a living in an industry trying to
compete with a free product.
Update: Pete Johnson speaks of legislation required to ban payments to websites
18th December 2013. See
article from phys.org
the event: For Adults Only? -- protecting children from online porn conference, organised by ATVOD, there was much discussion of ways to censor the internet in the name of child protection. In particular there were further comments about blocking
payment services to adult websites. Pete Johnson, ATVOD Chief Executive, said:
The overarching message of the conference was that we all need to continue finding ways to better protect children online. That is why
ATVOD is working with Visa Europe, MasterCard, PayPal and others in the UK payments industry to design a process which would prevent payments being made to foreign websites which allow children in the UK to view hardcore pornography. The initiative
requires statutory underpinning and we are therefore discussing with Government the options for bringing this about. In the meantime, ATVOD will continue to take robust action to ensure that UK websites keep hardcore porn out of reach of children.
Ofcom recommends strict age verification for R18 material on Video On Demand and a ban on anything stronger
See Ofcom report: Sexually Explicit
Material and Video On Demand Services [pdf]
This report concerns the protection of children from hard core pornography on UK- based video on demand services1 . The government is concerned that under the current UK legislation these protections may not be adequate.
April 2010, DCMS wrote to Ofcom about the new legislation for UK-based video on demand services (implementing European law), which for the first time impose certain minimum requirements on regulated UK-based video on demand services
the legislation introduces minimum requirements on the provision of potentially harmful material in VOD services. The relevant section of the Communications Act (368E(2)) states that:
If an on-demand programme
service contains material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen, the material must be made available in a manner which secures that such persons will not normally see or hear it .
DCMS raised concerns as to whether this provision would in practice provide sufficient safeguards to protect children from sexually explicit material, or whether greater safeguards might be appropriate for such material which
is made available over VOD Services.
DCMS considered in its letter to Ofcom that a precautionary approach would be justified. This was because such an approach:
- would be generally supported by the public, given the nature of the material in question and the need to protect minors
- would be consistent with the tough constraints which Parliament has already placed on the distribution of sexually
explicit material in hard copy form as a film or a DVD (i.e. material classified as R18 by the British Board of Film Classification
- would also be consistent with the approach Ofcom has taken on the provision of this material on television under
its Broadcasting Code.
- In DCMS's view, there is plainly an argument for concluding that on-demand programme services, which are capable of being accessed by children and young people at home round the clock, require sufficient safeguards.
Evidence relating to harm
In light of the Government's clearly stated intentions, we commissioned research to inform our response to DCMS.
A review was commissioned from Dr Guy Cumberbatch, an independent expert in the
effects of media, especially on young people.This looked at the available evidence on the risk of harm from R18 material. The review updates the review of the research literature in this area conducted for Ofcom by Dr Ellen Helsper of the London School
of Economics ( LSE ) in 2005.
Guy Cumberbatch's main conclusions are consistent with the conclusions of the 2005 review. Firstly, that the research does not provide conclusive evidence that R18 material might seriously impair minors'
development. Secondly, the research does not provide clear, conclusive evidence of a lesser degree of harm. It is acknowledged that the research is by its nature limited given there are significant ethical constraints about conducting experiments which
expose children to this type of material and monitor their development for signs of potential harm.
However, some experts believe that there is evidence that exposure of minors to R18 material can have adverse effects. In short, this area remains
highly controversial and in light of these considerations, it cannot be confidently concluded that sexually explicit material carries no risk of harm to the development of minors.
Guy Cumberbatch's report has been peer reviewed by Dr Sonia
Livingstone of the LSE's Department of Media and Communications.
Conclusions and recommendations
In reaching a view in response to DCMS's request as to whether greater safeguards might be appropriate for the protection of
children in this important and controversial area, Ofcom considered both R18 material and also material stronger than R18. It took account of the following important considerations.
In relation to R18 material, these considerations are:
- that the evidence for children being caused harm by exposure to R18 material is inconclusive and the research is necessarily limited by the ethical constraints of exposing children and young people to sexually explicit material
- Ofcom has a
statutory duty under Section 3 of the Communications Act 2003 to further the interests of citizens and consumers and in doing so, to have regard to the vulnerability of children (and others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of
- that the public (including parents) consider that whilst those who wish to should have access to pornography, access to this material should be restricted in such a way that children cannot see it
- the range of
approaches in Europe as regards implementing the might seriously impair obligation in the Directive, and the number of countries that have relied on other legislation (existing or new) to restrict access to sexually explicit material on VOD
- the lack of any test case under current UK law establishing whether R18 promotional material supplied over the internet is obscene (i.e. has a tendency to deprave and corrupt its likely audience), but noting also that according to the
Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) (Legal Guidance to prosecutors) , it is possible that the publication of such material, provided it is sufficiently explicit and is freely accessible, is capable of being prosecuted as obscene and therefore
a criminal offence under the Obscene Publications Act [Although it is noted later in the report that no such prosecution has ever actually been attempted].
- the desirability in the public interest of giving children appropriate protection from
highly unsuitable material
- the absence in the current regulations of a clear standard requiring sexually explicit material of R18 standard (or its equivalent) to be prohibited, in VOD services, unless it is made subject to restrictions;
the Government's clear intention to ensure protection of children from sexually explicit material on UK-based VOD services
- the value of adopting a precautionary approach to protecting minors from the risk of harm from accessing R18 material (and
material stronger than R18) on UK- based VOD services. There is clear evidence that the public (and in particular parents) support a precautionary approach.
In relation to material stronger than R18 we had regard to the following considerations:
- content stronger than R18 material encompasses a wide variety of unclassified material which cannot legally be supplied in the UK in licensed sex shops and includes abusive and/or violent pornography, examples of which have been held to be obscene
and a criminal offence to provide, if accessible by children
- this material is acknowledged to be potentially harmful or very harmful to adults, particularly those who are vulnerable
- yet the current legislation does not clearly prohibit
it from VOD Services.
In summary, Ofcom's opinion is that taking into account:
- all the considerations set out in this report, including the evidence relating to harm
- DCMS's clearly stated intention to ensure the protection of children
- the desire for certainty in this important and controversial area
- the legislative protections currently in place are not sufficiently clear to provide that certainty. Greater safeguards should therefore be put in place.
We recommend the Government introduce new legislation which would specifically:
- prohibit R18 material from being included in UK-based VOD services unless appropriate mandatory restrictions are in place
- prohibit altogether from UK-based VOD services material whose content the BBFC would refuse to classify i.e. material
stronger than R18.
In the absence of evidence of harm due to porn, ATVOD will blather on 'serious impairment of the moral development'
of minors until legislation can be drawn up to legally ban it
Ed Vaizey Letter [pdf] from culture.gov.uk
Ed Vaizey wrote to Ed Richards of Ofcom on the subject of restricting hardcore Video on Demand:
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL AND VIDEO ON DEMAND SERVICES
Ofcom produced a report on this
last autumn and our officials have subsequently discussed the best way forward in the light of the recommendations of the Ofcom report, the policy position taken by ATVOD to require access controls to any such material and Government policy generally on
access to potentially harmful material, including work in UKCCIS and the current Communications Review.
Like you, we are quite clear that children should not have access to hard-core pornography on ATVOD-regulated
video-on-demand services. The current rules put in place by ATVOD requiring access controls on such material should remain in place.
As ATVOD regulates only a comparatively small number of services available over the
Internet, our wider approach to protecting children from potentially harmful material is being taken forward by the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS), building on the commitments made in our industry round-tables. We are committed to making
progress in this area, preferably through industry action, but if necessary through legislation. Any necessary legislation is best taken forward in the forthcoming Communications Bill.
Your report examined the current
UK regulations, transposing the requirement in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive that VOD material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors [is] only made available in such a way that ensures that minors
will not normally hear or see [it] (which means in effect that this content must generally be encrypted). Department for Culture, Media and Sport
What concerned us was whether that requirement would provide
sufficient safeguards to protect children from material equivalent to that classified by the BBFC at R18 and suitable for sale on DVD only in licensed sex shops. Our policy aim was that such material should not be made available in ways accessible to
children on those UK-based VOD services which fell to be regulated under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive.
The Ofcom report concluded that this was an area in which it was probably impossible to get conclusive
evidence of harm and that it was Ofcom's view that, in the absence of such evidence, there was a case for taking a precautionary approach and indeed seeking a legislative opportunity to provide a more certain legal basis for requiring access controls to
In the meantime, of course, ATVOD's rules have continued to require access controls to prevent children's access to R18 material on regulated sites – as we understand it, this generally at present
takes the form of short video sequences promoting hard- core pornography sites which can be accessed in full only after supplying credit card details.
The Ofcom review considered two main areas of content. The
principal one, and the one on which the Department had sought your advice in particular, was the availability of hard-core pornography with content equivalent to that which would be classified by the BBFC as suitable to the R18 category in DVD format.
However, the report noted that there may also be material for which the BBFC would refuse a classification but which would not necessarily be illegal to distribute to adults.
All such material is prohibited by Ofcom on
licensed broadcasting services and is allowed on VOD services regulated by ATVOD only when access controls are in place to prevent access by children. Outside the small number of regulated services, such material is known to be widely available on the
Internet and that is why Ministers have given priority to working with ISPs to allow parents to make an active choice as to whether they want such material to be available to their household. The wider application of this policy by ISPs, and the use of
effective parental controls by parents, would do much to minimise the accessibility of hard-core pornography, and worse, by children on all on-demand services.
The questions addressed by the Ofcom report were therefore
whether, on the small number of on-demand services regulated by ATVOD, where additional controls could be put in place under the AVMS Directive, the Regulations provided an adequate level of protection for children from material equivalent to R18 by
offering a secure legal basis on which to require access controls. Department for Culture, Media and Sport
We remain of the view - like you - that there is a good case that the Regulations require a precautionary
approach in that the test is whether material might be seriously harmful rather than that it necessarily is demonstrably harmful. However we accept that, in the light of Ofcom's recommendation, it would be preferable to provide legal certainty to ensure
that the ATVOD rules are robust, in case of future legal challenge, and the protection for children secure.
In these circumstances, and given the wider policy context, it seems to us that these issues would be best
addressed comprehensively in the Communications Review. We would appreciate it if Ofcom, with ATVOD, would take any steps necessary in the interim period to ensure that children remained adequately protected under the ATVOD rules, in the knowledge that
we could bring forward Regulations in the short term if it proved necessary to support this position.
Ed Vaizey looks to restrict UK internet porn to credit card holders only
See government press release from
See also Ofcom report: Sexually Explicit
Material and Video On Demand Services [pdf]
Repressive controls to prevent children from accessing hard-core pornographic material through video-on-demand (VoD) services will be secured as part of the comprehensive review of communications legislation currently being undertaken,
Communications Minister Ed Vaizey has announced.
Rules are already in place which mean that video which the BBFC would classify as R18, pornography which is explicit and sold in licensed sex shops, but not illegal, can be made available through
VoD services only if excessively restrictive controls are in place to prevent children from accessing it.
The Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD) is the internet censor for VoD services and enforces rukles which ensure that any material
which 'may' seriously impair children's physical, mental or moral development, but probably doesn't must not be freely available. Access controls such as pin protection must be put in place if R18-type content is to be made available on anytime
television services or internet websites that include video.
But, in the light of an Ofcom report which recommended a precautionary approach to protecting children and new legislation, the Government has committed to securing the present controls
and looking at whether the legal position should be bolstered further by future-proofing legislation as part of the current review of communications policy.
The Government is clear that
children must be protected from harmful content, on television or online. We have made it a priority to address the concerns of parents that their kids are being exposed to material that's not appropriate for them to see.
Without a doubt we want to make sure that video-on-demand services carrying adult material cannot be seen by children and it's already a legal requirement that any such content has access controls.
But the communications review gives us an opportunity to consider whether there's more we should do to ensure children remain protected and to limit access to potentially harmful material, such as introducing unclassified material
into the statutory framework.
A starting point is Ofcom's report to Government, Sexually Explicit Material
and Video On Demand Services which has just been published.
The review will look at the availability of both R18-type material, and video content which is stronger than that classified as R18 by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)
but still might be made available to adults.
Ensuring the effectiveness of restrictive controls on VoD services will also complement the recommendations made by Reg Bailey in his independent review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of
childhood, Letting Children Be Children.