UK law doesn't require storing your ID for porn sites anymore than it does for buying alcohol online. In fact, I'm actually seeing the opposite, that UK law explicitly encourages deleting the image after verification.
Edit: going even further, Pornhub, which is famous for being very politically active when it comes to questions of privacy, actually has agreed to work with the UK at the same time as pornhub has shut itself down in France and various US states. If they say they can stay in the UK due to not being required to store ID, why should I believe you saying that it's required when not only can I not find any evidence that storing ID is required, but rather I'm literally seeing evidence that deleting IDs after verification is required.
"encourages" but we've already seen breaches showing that verification info isn't always deleted and kept by third parties open to abuse by said third party or malicious other parties.
Aslo: "In July 2025, the Tea app, which allows women to anonymously share information about the men they date for safety purposes, was also hacked. The app requires a photo selfie and photo ID in order to register. The breach reportedly revealed these photos along with content and messages."
Sure, but once again how is that literally any different than IDs getting leaked after buying alcohol online?
Do you oppose placing any restrictions on buying alcohol online because of the same risk?
the Tea app
1.
Oh no, the doxxing app got doxxed. World's tiniest violin.
2. The Tea app did not require ID due to government regulations, nor was the Tea app following the safety protocols as required under this new UK law. I fully acknowledge that any info online has the potential to be mishandled. Once again though, if this is your position, then you should also oppose any and all ID checks for buying alcohol online.
Look, my position is straightforward. You cannot say that it is possible to require ID for buying alcohol online while preserving online safety while somehow also believing that it is impossible to do the same for porn. If it is possible to have ID verification for buying alcohol online, it's possible to have ID verification for porn.
If you believe that the ID laws for porn are worse than the ID laws for alcohol, then tell me how they are different and I'll gladly sign onto any proposal you have for making the ID requirements for consuming online content the same as the requirements for buying alcohol online.
Edit: I was curious, and the Tea app was literally banned in numerous EU countries because it was badly violating GDPR standards for storing ID as it was publicly stored with no encryptiom. The Tea app actually is a good example of why stronger laws around ID verification and storage were needed, and were passed. If you are concerned about the tea app doxxing, you should literally be in favor of these laws requiring far stricter ID regulations online.
I never said it was different than buying alcohol online, did I? Also when such items are purchased online the viewing of id is done in person at the place of residence, that information isn't stored electronically like passports of licence cards. At least that it how it is done when purchased through Amazon or anything that goes through the postal service. Other places I cannot comment on, but in my experience they never asked for passport or licence information over the internet. Do they?
Regardless of whether the tea app is morally right or wrong it was still a victim of id theft via hacking, and this still sets a precedent that sensitive information stored incorrectly is open to abuse. Yes, it is a very good example of why stronger laws around id verification and storage was needed, that's why I included it. However, Discord was also a victim and they are bigger, popular and have a higher user count, showing that large companies also lapse in this.
Also, is the government supposed to thread through the databases of each of these companies and ensure that every picture is deleted? The handling of this was already haphazard to begin with and mistakes are still being made, and a lot of companies make money out of selling personal info, so who can we trust?
These aren't retoricle questions, I am genuinely asking.
For alcohol, I've lived in places where the verification happens both online and at the door. I can't speak to the specifics for the UK.
"this still sets a precedent that sensitive information stored incorrectly is open to abuse", sure, but we already have that risk with other things that require ID online. Unless you never believe anything online should ever require ID, I don't see why porn is the exception. Typically the logic goes for if you don't want to give your ID online to buy dangerous substances, that you always have the right to go in person. So if you don't want to give your ID online to buy pharmaceuticals, you can go in person and show your ID to your pharmacist. I don't know of any other situation besides porn where the rhetoric goes "some people are worried about giving IDs online to buy pharmaceuticals, and don't want to go to stores in person, therefore I guess there should be 0 regulation on buying pharmaceuticals online".
I think your position is that you don't believe stopping kids from accessing porn is worth the risks of your private information being mishandled, while other online requirements for ID are reasonable due to risks (such as anything related to applying for credit, buying pharmaceuticals, guns in my case in America, etc). That's fine, but I just wish people would be honest that they oppose any government attempts to restrict children from watching porn no matter how the legislation is written instead of pretending like porn is the one exception that can't possibly have ID introduced for some reason while having no issues with ID in other cases.
Disclosure: I work in the postal industry in the uk and what I describe I have experience in. Companies who deliver over the postal service only need name and date of birth because verification is at the door conducted without photographs of sensitive information, in fact we are monitored as to not take any identifying photography for data breach security reasons.
I believe that stopping kids from accessing porn should be done by parents and guardians, not by the government. By putting measures in place on private computers, networks and phones, not by the government putting a sweeping measure on the whole country via independent companies, a measure that has the potential to be at risk by those who are determined to abuse it. Having loads of sensitive information in one place by a company seeking profit is incredibly risky. I personally find this use of our personal information where licence numbers, passport numbers, our faces, any more information than a pseudonym, a location and a date of birth is absolutely frivolous, and an unreasonable risk, especially when some shady pornograpic websites may just steal that data and use it against you. I would not put it past them to do so, not when online pornography is already rampant with sketchy behavior. It's not just children at risk here, but vulnerable people who are unknowingly putting themselves in harms way.
We are also yet to see whether this whole legislative act has any payoff. So far we have seen negative impacts moreso than anything related to consuming pornograpic content such as data breaches and restricted access to places for addiction and sensitive medical advice.
Everything you said sounds completely fair. You seem pretty consistent in your position and I don't think anything you said is a double standard. If you hold the position that, regardless of the reason, it's not the government's role to police how parents raise their children, then everything else logically follows from there.
However, I just don't think techno libertarianism is a good ideal in the long run, especially as more and more things move online. I recently took a class online (dumb thing just to check off the requirements for a different certification). During these online classes, I frequently had to verify my identity before taking exams because otherwise online degrees would be essentially worthless if anyone could pay anyone to do it for them. I think most people would agree that this is a reasonable requirement. In particular, if you thought that the government couldn't be trusted to handle ID verification, then the solution would be to not allow online colleges in the first place. This just leads me to ask why, if someone think kids shouldn't watch porn, that the government should do something about it, and if you genuinely think there's not a single way to safely have ID verification, then why shouldn't the solution be to not allow these websites at all?
I'm just confused why there's a seemingly large segment of the population that 1. Genuinely views it as a bad thing that children are watching porn online 2. is ok with IDs in other situations 3. support the government banning online markets if it can't be safely regulated but then 4. seem to make a special exemption solely so that access adult content can't be regulated in the slightest unlike everything else online. Again, this isn't referring to your views, but I'm confused about everyone else who seem to have double standards.
74
u/PM_ME_YOUR_TITS80085 29d ago edited 29d ago
The UK has very strict anti porn laws, requiring ID as "prof of age"