26-01-2025, 17:15
|
#946
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: chavvy Nottingham
Age: 41
Services: Freeview, Sky+, 100 Mb/s VM BB, mega i7 PC, iPhone 13, Macbook Air
Posts: 7,411
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
How exactly can material be removed from the internet?
|
|
|
26-01-2025, 17:32
|
#947
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,672
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by nffc
How exactly can material be removed from the internet?
|
Hidden from public view.
---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
what if people download this material before it can be taken down
|
Hopefully such material won't go up in the first place.
|
|
|
26-01-2025, 18:21
|
#948
|
Smeghead
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Glasgow
Age: 44
Services: Sky Q 2Tb, Sky Q mini, boxsets and Sports & Movies HD, Sky Fibre unlimited
Posts: 14,509
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
Hidden from public view.
---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------
Hopefully such material won't go up in the first place.
|
That's not how the Internet works. Take it down and it just appears somewhere else.
__________________
AMD Ryzen 7 7700 | 32GB DDR5 6000 | RADEON 7900XT | WD 2TB NVME
|
|
|
26-01-2025, 19:08
|
#949
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: chavvy Nottingham
Age: 41
Services: Freeview, Sky+, 100 Mb/s VM BB, mega i7 PC, iPhone 13, Macbook Air
Posts: 7,411
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
That's not how the Internet works. Take it down and it just appears somewhere else.
|
Exactly.
If they order it to be taken down then
1. sites like archive.org will probably have already crawled it
2. it will go somewhere else where it is either geoblocked or needs a login to see
Not to mention the people who have already either seen it or downloaded a copy for themselves.
It's impossible to block stuff like this, much as perhaps the content shouldn't be there to begin with, and Reeves is showing her lack of intellect by suggesting that it would work.
Ditto the OSA
|
|
|
27-01-2025, 13:26
|
#950
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,672
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Yes, it’s the fault of the internet, and Amazon and definitely nothing to do with the failure of any and all government agencies involved that did nothing…..……………..
|
It's been acknowledged by the powers that be that both contributed to this tragedy.
|
|
|
27-01-2025, 14:18
|
#951
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: chavvy Nottingham
Age: 41
Services: Freeview, Sky+, 100 Mb/s VM BB, mega i7 PC, iPhone 13, Macbook Air
Posts: 7,411
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
It's been acknowledged by the powers that be that both contributed to this tragedy.
|
The only way Amazon could be at fault is that a knife was purchased from them which ended up with a 17 yr old, the irony being there if he'd waited a few days he would have been able to buy it legally anyway.
Given that when one purchases age restricted items on Amazon, their policy is that they have to hand it over to someone at the address who is over age.
So the questions which I'm not sure have been fully answered here are who purchased the knife? Was it under a 17 yr old's Amazon account in which case it should never have been allowed as the person purchasing it was not of age (which is what matters). And how was it delivered, was it signed for by him or his parents, what age verification was made there?
Something probably does need to be done here because the present system simply doesn't work. If someone ordered a bottle of whisky off Amazon and that person was over 18, paid for it, it was delivered but at the time because they were at work the only person in was their 15 year old child who had just got back from school, the delivery would fail, realistically this shouldn't be the case as much as it isn't their item and it's as much likely to get into their hands if they signed for it as if their parents did and then gave it to them. Verifying that the purchaser is of age before accepting the order should be mandatory (the first time an age restricted item is purchased) and then held as verified to purchase age restricted items moving forward. Then the items should just be delivered as normal.
|
|
|
27-01-2025, 16:32
|
#952
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,672
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by nffc
The only way Amazon could be at fault is that a knife was purchased from them which ended up with a 17 yr old, the irony being there if he'd waited a few days he would have been able to buy it legally anyway.
Given that when one purchases age restricted items on Amazon, their policy is that they have to hand it over to someone at the address who is over age.
So the questions which I'm not sure have been fully answered here are who purchased the knife? Was it under a 17 yr old's Amazon account in which case it should never have been allowed as the person purchasing it was not of age (which is what matters). And how was it delivered, was it signed for by him or his parents, what age verification was made there?
Something probably does need to be done here because the present system simply doesn't work. If someone ordered a bottle of whisky off Amazon and that person was over 18, paid for it, it was delivered but at the time because they were at work the only person in was their 15 year old child who had just got back from school, the delivery would fail, realistically this shouldn't be the case as much as it isn't their item and it's as much likely to get into their hands if they signed for it as if their parents did and then gave it to them. Verifying that the purchaser is of age before accepting the order should be mandatory (the first time an age restricted item is purchased) and then held as verified to purchase age restricted items moving forward. Then the items should just be delivered as normal.
|
Then, at the same time, we have situations where age restricted items are refused because someone clearly over 18 doesn't have any ID!
|
|
|
27-01-2025, 18:51
|
#953
|
Dr Pepper Addict
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nottingham
Age: 62
Services: Aquiss FTTP (900M), Sky Q TV, Sky Mobile, Flextel SIP
Posts: 29,589
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
Then, at the same time, we have situations where age restricted items are refused because someone clearly over 18 doesn't have any ID!
|
You mean like the "Challange 25" nonsense. The legal age for drinking in the UK is 18, not 25.
Years ago now my daughter was refused a drink (age was the excuse) and she was clearly older than 17 (she was actually about 23).
__________________
Baby, I was born this way.
|
|
|
27-01-2025, 19:58
|
#954
|
vox populi vox dei
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the last resort
Services: every thing
Posts: 14,556
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
You mean like the "Challange 25" nonsense. The legal age for drinking in the UK is 18, not 25.
Years ago now my daughter was refused a drink (age was the excuse) and she was clearly older than 17 (she was actually about 23).
|
My eldest is 37 he still gets asked for id to buy tobacco
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
|
|
|
28-01-2025, 16:26
|
#955
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,672
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
I watched a lot of the programmes yesterday for Holocaust Memorial Day. I found it emotional, but also very educational as this was never taught at our school.
There were things that I wasn't aware of, including how it all started with lies, insults and misinformation about Jewish people. Had it existed then, i've no doubt that the internet would have also been used to do this, which just shows how important the words are that people use to degenerate and discriminate against disadvantaged and minority groups and why the concept of protected groups was established.
|
|
|
29-01-2025, 01:18
|
#956
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,672
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Just watching a programme that was on Channel 4 earlier about deepfakes that the Online Safety Act is to make illegal:
https://www.channel4.com/tv-guide/2025-01-28
One of the perpetrators agreed to an anonymous online interview. He said that, whilst he felt it was unethical, 'it is what it is', it's making money for him and that if he didn't do it, somebody else would. This is similar to what drug dealers, people traffickers etc say.
He went on to say that, even when made illegal, he doesn't think that it will stop and that the AI is now becoming so advanced that it will soon be possible to create people participating in sex acts on video, just by using a photo of their face.
Interestingly, when they asked AI to produce a deepfake of a (consenting) man, it did it, but it produced an image with a man's legs & face, but the rest of it was of a female body, complete with large breasts!
I think that this goes to show that it has been ingrained into the AI software that.the naked images that it is asked to produce are predominantly about the female form and that it cannot accept that a deepfake image can be created without the inclusion of female genitalia.
The presenter concluded that this demonstrated that it's not about humiliating or disrespecting people, it's about doing this to women.
|
|
|
29-01-2025, 02:59
|
#957
|
Dr Pepper Addict
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nottingham
Age: 62
Services: Aquiss FTTP (900M), Sky Q TV, Sky Mobile, Flextel SIP
Posts: 29,589
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
They "conclude" what they want to conclude, to suit their story/agenda.
__________________
Baby, I was born this way.
|
|
|
02-02-2025, 12:43
|
#958
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,672
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
It's unfortunate that the Online Safety Act provision whereby Ofcom are able to order websites to take down material doesn't come in until March.
The murderer of those little girls in Southport had been reading inappropriate material, such as white genocide, before he went out and committed these heinous crimes.
The Government has asked the user to user sites to do so voluntarily, so let's hope that they defy convention and have
the decency to do so.
|
Unfortunately, but as expected, the Home Secretary said this morning that much of this material, including an Al-Qaeda training manual, has not been taken down.
She went on to say that, if the Online Safety Act didn't deal with this as expected, that the law would be strengthened.
No doubt these sites will then start whining that their right to publish free speech has been curtailed.
|
|
|
02-02-2025, 12:57
|
#959
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: chavvy Nottingham
Age: 41
Services: Freeview, Sky+, 100 Mb/s VM BB, mega i7 PC, iPhone 13, Macbook Air
Posts: 7,411
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
Unfortunately, but as expected, the Home Secretary said this morning that much of this material, including an Al-Qaeda training manual, has not been taken down.
She went on to say that, if the Online Safety Act didn't deal with this as expected, that the law would be strengthened.
No doubt these sites will then start whining that their right to publish free speech has been curtailed.
|
Why would sites (especially if they are not in the UK) take down content just because Mrs Balls whines about it?
And why does she think people won't simply find another method to distribute the content where she can't see it?
Yet another politician showing their naivety and ignorance of how a global resource works.
|
|
|
02-02-2025, 14:10
|
#960
|
Grumpy Fecker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Warrington
Age: 65
Services: Every Weekend
Posts: 16,952
|
Re: Online Safety Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by nffc
Why would sites (especially if they are not in the UK) take down content just because Mrs Balls whines about it?
And why does she think people won't simply find another method to distribute the content where she can't see it?
Yet another politician showing their naivety and ignorance of how a global resource works.
|
No way will something be taken down that is on a server in another country. The Government can try to block it but that's what VPN's are for. If people want to see something they will find a way. Mrs Balls needs to be educated in the way the internet works instead of talking drivel.
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (2 members and 1 guests)
|
Paddy1, Itshim
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:25.
|