Peers have suggested adding a regulatory exemption for sites which are considered low risk for harm and provide a public good.
    •  VioletTeacup   ( @VioletTeacup@feddit.uk ) English
      15•1 year ago

      You’d think it would be simple. If you asked most parents if they’d let their kids run around a mall or supermarket unsupervised, most would say no. So why are they fine with doing just that on the internet?

      •  coolin   ( @coolin@beehaw.org ) English
        1•1 year ago

        The difference is that they can give their kid an iPad to look at all day and disconnect themselves from the responsibilities of being a parent while knowing that their child is safe. Many also assume YouTube kids is free of any bad content (it’s not).

    •  argv_minus_one   ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) English
      1•1 year ago

      I don’t know why children need to be so heavily protected from “harmful content”. Kids in the ‘90s grew up with Mortal Kombat, action movies, rotten.com, and Lenna, but these legislators think kids’ brains are going to shatter into a million pieces because they saw a nipple online? Preposterous.

      Kids are clever and resilient. It’s these panicked adults who have issues.

  •  tkc   ( @tkc@feddit.uk ) English
    14•1 year ago

    This bill needs to be killed. It’s just more surveillance wrapped in saving the kids.

    I’ve had people say to me “But what if you’re partner was attacked, you would be glad that CCTV/message snooping was there” when debating these topics.

    I’m not going to lie, that’s hard to argue against, I would if it helped catch them, but I’d rather it didn’t happen in the first place. I don’t know where I’m going with this…

    •  noodle   ( @noodle@feddit.uk ) English
      8•1 year ago

      The uk legaladvice subreddit was a great example of why CCTV is absolutely useless.

      The police often just won’t retrieve it. Either because they have a bunch of other cases they think are a higher priority, or there is too much footage to go through.

      When they do eventually motivate themselves to go retrieve it, it has either been overwritten or doesn’t show what you need.

      •  tkc   ( @tkc@feddit.uk ) English
        9•1 year ago

        Yes, absolutely.

        Some friends and I were attacked at a taxi rank on a busy high street many years ago. 3 were stabbed/slashed with a bottle and we all had a night in A&E. One has permanent face scars from it.

        CCTV showed them getting into a taxi, the taxi driver was found and said they dropped them off at a petrol station.

        The police had all that info and got the CCTV from the petrol station, and still couldn’t/didn’t identify them.

      •  digdilem   ( @digdilem@feddit.uk ) English
        1•1 year ago

        I’m not sure that’s broadly true, given the number of prosecutions where CCTV is given as evidence.

        I’ve no doubt the examples you give are true, and that it happens far too often, but that’s not the same as saying cctv is useless.

    •  jtb   ( @jtb@feddit.uk ) English
      2•1 year ago

      The original purpose of the police was crime prevention. They should be out on the beat, not sitting in the office staring at screens. Having police wandering around deters crime.

  •  ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝   ( @Emperor@feddit.uk ) English
    11•1 year ago

    It’s another piece of unworkable legislation that tries to use fear to give a government a rather nebulous open-ended tool for online censorship. They’ve been trying to make age verification for porn sites a thing for decades and that hasn’t happened yet.