Ex-barrister reckons he has a privacy-preserving solution to Britain's smut ban plans
- Reference: 1592903713
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/06/23/age_verification_alternative_safecast_global/
- Source link:
SafeCast Global, run by Alistair Kelman, reckons it has the solution to the age-verification kerfuffle that [1]threatened to create, in the UK , a register of every adult wishing to watch pornography in their own time and on their own devices.
Although the previous Conservative government under Theresa May shelved its porn ban plans in its dying days in October 2019, they came perilously close to fruition. The data store necessary to enforce such a ban would have been a severe intrusion into people's privacy and a giant floating target for hackers, both of the blackmailing variety and the state-backed sort, making using the internet in Britain an extremely dangerous activity for sensible people.
Well, well, well. Fancy that. UK.gov shelves planned pr0n block [2]READ MORE
Against this backdrop, [3]one-time criminal barrister Kelman's proposals are, if not perfect, certainly eye-catching. At its heart they seem deceptively straightforward as SafeCast Global's website describes: instead of age verification, content creators (YouTubers, smut pedlars, broadcast TV companies, and so on) place an encoded marker or tag in the video file.
This, argues Kelman, could be done by tweaking the existing TSP 2121 standard for TV video files to require the inclusion of so-called "HeadCodes". TVs, phones, set-top boxes and the like could then be updated to read those codes and play or refuse to play associated content.
"By inserting the SafeCast HeadCode labels within the TSP 2121 standard, it will be possible to enable filtering of content to protect children. This involves amending just one field in the definitions in TSP 2121 to include a SafeCast HeadCode," the company's [4]website explains .
Kelman himself told The Register : "If our proposal is accepted, the content is labelled by the creator so it's easy to filter out inappropriate content from young children, using the lightweight filter. That's not censorship; adults can view the content in the unfiltered state." SafeCast's plans do appear to rely on consumer equipment and middleware being able to read the HeadCodes and block the playing of age-inappropriate content, which in turn implies the implementation of parental control mode.
SafeCast's chief added that the firm is "mapping this onto the National Curriculum" so age-appropriate content could be graded in bands rather than requiring the viewer's precise age in order for content to be filtered out or included.
"Children need to be protected," he told The Register , explaining his inspiration for the scheme lay in the early 2000s when he left the criminal bar and began working in countering child abuse imagery: "I had never encountered this field before. I was so horrified by what was actually out there, the way people were behaving, that was what drove me into coming up with these ideas."
There's one seemingly obvious flaw with the content labelling plan on the face of it, though: what if a content creator or uploader doesn't want to play ball with the SafeCast HeadCode labelling system?
"First of all, on the engines as it comes up there may well be some AI that supports you," said Kelman. "So that when you're labelling it, right, this content is a '4' on a graduated scale. The system comes back at you and says, 'is it a "4"? Really?' You can override that and put it on. But the moment you put it out there your reputation is at stake. If you don't want to label it yourself, what we anticipate is that you'll be able to ask for what we call a Safecheck labeller to put the correct label on your content."
Intriguingly, SafeCast Global isn't planning to charge for this technology, as Kelman told El Reg : "We've created this, we have the trademark for Safecheck, but it's not our core business, its something we want to to give away free. For lots of people over the world this could be an employment opportunity – and boy oh boy, do we need employment opportunities right now!"
Kelman also said his proposals had received some pushback from Google, which, he said, perceived it as a potential rival to Safesearch filtering technology on the adtech firm's search engine. The difference, he said, is that SafeCast's HeadCode system would operate on a transparent basis.
While the scheme may not be perfect, and is a stepping stone for further discussion, the very idea that a privacy-compliant content labelling and filtering programme is technically feasible may help privacy advocates and others who don't want to find themselves on state-mandated databases when – not if – the porn ban plan [5]rears its ugly head again. ®
Sponsored: [6]Free Hands-on Training: Kubernetes in Google Cloud
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2019/10/16/age_verification_pornblocking_plans_shelved/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2019/10/16/age_verification_pornblocking_plans_shelved/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2015/03/26/prestel_hack_anniversary_prince_philip_computer_misuse/
[4] https://safecast.co.uk/2020/06/06/technology/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2019/10/18/gov_splashed_22m_on_failed_age_verification_policy/
[6] https://go.theregister.com/tl/1956/-9042/free-hands-on-training-kubernetes-in-google-cloud?td=wptl1956
Re: What could possibly go wrong?
Anyway, it's not a new idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
It is closer to the existing "rating" HTML metadata tag.
< meta name="rating" content= value > where value is one of:
general
mature
restricted
14 years
safe for kids
This could actually make $$$
Could content filters be the next big thing for TV companies and phone & tablet manufacturers attempting to command a premium?
Everyone would need to upgrade the hardware or their children would turn out like we all did.
Manufacturers will be keen on this, or something like it.
Alternatively we could just educate and monitor our children's content. That does require effort though...
Re: This could actually make $$$
And we all know how for convenience many people will expose all!
DRM type stuff
Think that the extra-terrestrial broadcasters cottoned on to this years ago with subscriptions, PIN numbers etc. Problem is the source, not the delivery protection.
TSP 2121
So by modifying a standard that isn't used to share pornography over the internet they think that they can change how pornography is shared over the internet?
I'm confused.
Mind of a teenager
So 14 year old me wants to see some b00bs on the internet, my browser stops me doing it because of this newfangled DRM type stuff.
Whats the next thing i do? Give up on looking at b00bs or start scouring the internet for a browser / media player that doesnt check this new DRM thing?
Errm im guessing most teenagers will do the second option, then download some malware infested piece of tat that promises free pr0n for all. Its on a family computer and now mum and dads bank details and passwords have been sent to an internet nasty person.
Well done govt, you delayed my kid looking at porn for 20 mins and all it cost me was every drop of my personal information and the time and effort of recovering my machine after ransomware.
Re: Mind of a teenager
When the [1]original policy was being developed, government minister for online safety Margot James made the following statement, ripe in its potential for misinterpretation:
Too many young people and children are coming across porn by accident .
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-43795806
Re: Mind of a teenager
If you let a 14 year old have administrative / software installation rights on your home PC (or even personal laptop), it's already game over.
How do you think schools cope? They stop kids being able to install or run stuff. It's all there, built-into the OS.
So now you have to ask Dad for his password to install the DRM-disrepecting browser, or you have to circumvent Windows security. Neither are impossible, but neither are easy either.
Honestly, you're far more at risk of your kid accidentally installing a spyware webcam app that puts them at serious risk, than them downloading a bit of Page 3. Why you'd think that access enough to do the first is somehow necessary for a kid, I can't fathom.
Sure, "most people" won't. And that's on them.
Playground swapping
This would just force kids to go back to the playground disk-swapping of the 90s, or even a resurgence of the skin-mags. Kids that want porn will find a way even if it's searching through the bins of news-agents for the coverless throw-aways. I know I did!
Waste of time
This is a waste of time, since nothing will ever satisfy the "won't somebody think of the children" mob. It's the very existence of smutty material that bothers them.
Re: Waste of time
Of course you can "think of the children"! You put them all in an asylum from birth, where you teach them the values and virtues of this wonderful country. Then, by the time they are ripe, you have a conform class of new citizens, ready for consumption.
Is it just me...
Is it just me, but in this context "HeadCode" fnar, fnar..
"There's one seemingly obvious flaw"
Only one? For a start there's the other half of the system, the player or whatever it is that has to handle the material. That has to look at the the field and then do what it's configured to do - which it might not - and it has to be configured appropriately to the audience and who does that?
Then there's the notion that this is an international standard so how do you get different countries to agree on how a particular file should be rated? Or do different countries get to rate material to their own needs and how do you then enforce the distribution of files according to country (although big media marketing would love to have misdistribution enforced by criminal sanctions)?
This looks interesting
It seems like a very good compromise, but I have no idea of the tech stuff behind it or how it could be subverted. On the face of it, it does seem good.
I guess I'll wait for UK Gov's reaction. If they don't like it, it's likely that it is because they can't use it to further the surveillance state they are desperately trying to push forth - which would mean that it is indeed a good solution.
OK, seen a lot of the normal "why should I be incovenianced by a porn ban, I don't have kids" type of comments, so here is my tuppence worth.
Before I start, I am definitely not anti porn.
But, I have concerns on it being so freely available. Yes, when I was younger, I read porn, along with my mates. We had to build up the courage to go into a shop and buy a top shelf mag from the frankly terrifying woman in our local newsagent. That was for softcore porn. I don't think it's had any real effect on me, but it was just pictures of women's bits. Nothing hardcore, and not really much more pornographic than page 3.
Now, kids can go to thousands of sites, and stream videos of acts ranging from softcore posing, through hardcore (consensual intercourse) to rape and abuse (I've never seen it myself, but I have it on good authority there are these videos on the internet). They can view it *anywhere* and with limited or no checking. I don't count the "age verification" pages on some sites as adequate checking - anyone can answer yes,
I have serious concerns on the long term effect on society of these videos being freely available.
Now, you can argue I am wrong. I might be, and hope I am. These videos might have no effect on society. I doubt that, and it seems we may already being seeing evidence they are having an effect.
I don't agree with the ban as implemented by Theresa May. I don't think that was enforceable, but personally I don't see why we should be risking potential problems in society because a few people don't want to prove they are adults, so I have no objection as such to some sort of verification system.
I have serious concerns on the long term effect on society of these videos being freely available.
Pornography has been freely available online for more than 25 years now, so we are in the long term and whatever harms there are should be evident.
"so we are in the long term and whatever harms there are should be evident."
That looks like a bad argument though, because in the last couple of decades everything has gone to shit. The following might be caused by pornography then:
Neo-nazis.
Trump, Brexit, Bolsonaro/AMLO/Kirchner.
The crack-down in Hong Kong.
Civil war in Syria
and so on.
Software babysitting your child's Internet access is not parenting.
I can't convince my ex-wife to let my 11-year-old have a smartphone on their home Wifi (no SIM) enough so she can chat to her friends on a social network, while the ex- and her family are in the room. And the kid is THE MOST sensible kid I've ever seen (not parental bias, she just is).
If software lockouts are necessary, it's actually encouraging lazy parenting and blame-shifting ("Well, Apple should never have allowed that webpage to work on their iPad!" is a literal word-for-word phrase I've heard from a parent in the school I work in, when their child managed to get on a website at home, on their personal iPad, on their home Internet... no supervision, they just expected "Apple" to sort it out so it wasn't possible).
So I disagree with the concept of net-nanny software. I think parents should have supervision. In fact, I think "parental control software" should be a remote view of whatever their child's smartphone is showing currently, with a log of programs run, keys typed, etc. Otherwise, it's useless. And I think Internet access for vulnerable groups should be done in an open and supervised session, much like they're made to in school.
It's like expecting nightclubs to offer a safe-bus for kids under 12 to get home at midnight from the town centre, when what should be happening is the damn kids shouldn't be out at those hours, in those places, at all. Sure, we're "helping" and "doing the right thing" in getting them home safe, but it just shouldn't be an issue at all.
What could possibly go wrong?
Because no kids have ever circumvented parental controls.
Anyway, it's not a new idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit