[Cthulhu_]

Wasn't there a law passed that you need to provide ID before your ISP will serve porn sites? Or was that just a proposal? Either way, the powers that be are thirsting for a Great Firewall, an end to net neutrality, and backdoors to encryption.

[londons_explore]

That is already the case on most ISP's. I don't think it's legally required, but most ISP's do it with a wink wink nod bid agreement with the government.

It helps that ISP's want to do a credit check on their subscribers because then they get paid by credit checking agencies (credit checking agencies love checks for utilities because it gives a strong address to name to payment bounced-or-not linkage, so will either do the check for free, or sometimes even pay the utility for it).

So now the ISP can do a credit check on the subscriber to know their true identity, and know they are over 18, before allowing them to access the checkbox to enable porn sites.

[the_af]

> Wasn't there a law passed that you need to provide ID before your ISP will serve porn sites?

What happens if you don't provide your ID, is there a blacklist that only gets disabled if you authenticate?

Do they also enquire about the type of porn, what you intend to do with it, how often, and whether it's wholesome, traditional, honest to goodness British porn or some unbearable thing with pesky foreigners?

[pmyteh]

There was a law passed (Digital Economy Act 2017, pt.3[0]) but it's basically been shelved anyway as impractical.

In the UK many laws don't take effect immediately, but only on 'commencement' (normally by government order). If you look at the Archives copy of the act in the link, you'll see that there are several sections marked 'prospective' (not yet commenced). Although it looks like section 14 (the operative one which puts a duty to prevent access to under 18s) has been commenced, if you look at the footnote it only has been 'for specified purposes' and if you click through to look at the commencement order it's only actually in force for the purposes of subsection (b) (the Secretary of State may make regulations to define 'commercial basis' for pornography).

Although this is terribly confusing for people trying to work out what the laws are, it isn't unusual. It'll probably sit in this limbo state on the statute book for a good length of time and then be cleaned up by repeal next time the government passes a law in a similar area.

Or it might just sit there. The Easter Act 1928[1] setting a semi-fixed date for Easter is still extant but not in force. There may be older laws yet.

[0]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/30/part/3

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Act_1928

[Mindwipe]

> Wasn't there a law passed that you need to provide ID before your ISP will serve porn sites? Or was that just a proposal? Either way, the powers that be are thirsting for a Great Firewall, an end to net neutrality, and backdoors to encryption.

Yes, but it was never enacted because it is being combined into the Online Safety Bill, the same legislation that Signal are discussing here.

And not just porn sites - effectively every site on the internet will have to age verify under the legislation as stands, or make their content suitable for young children.