I too have been here for years and really don't want to share personal details / photos with third parties, As I have purchased numerous videos using my credit card, is this not proof enough, that I am over eighteen?

I understand why it has to be done, but age verification is not for me.

The influence of America's conservative prudes is spreading around the world.

I will probably have to say goodbye to the remaining visible bits of this website when the time comes, just like I have had to bid farewell to the large number of UK media websites who try to monetise cookie rejection and adblocking.

Feel sorry for people like Rev who rely on video sales to put food on the table. Even if he only loses 5 to 10% of his customers, it's going to hit him hard.

Here's to the final few weeks of access to everything on the site.

Your secret identity is safe with me Carlos the Jackal...I mean Mr Philip Holland!

Going to be a no from me too. It's a bit sad as I've been around in some form or another in the internet messy scene since well before the UMD existed. I wonder if this will finally be the thing that moves UMD over from the central (and in some ways only), game in town for messy fetish stuff to other forums that don't revolve quite so much around production and sales, which because of the necessity of the credit card processors led to some of the more confusing rules here over the last few years. That wouldn't be a bad thing, afaic.

I love that the people trying to sell us on how safe this is focus on how UMD never gets your ID information. The age verification service knows your real life credentials and knows you asked to be verified on UMD. Having that information in one place is a liability. The argument that they'll be careful and won't get hacked is wishful thinking. Banks are careful and get hacked. Health insurance companies are careful and get hacked. Governments are careful and get hacked. The only sensible option is to not hand over pictures of yourself and scans of your government ID to some company.

Just use a VPN y'all.

Now here's the thing - at least in my case.

My profile clearly states that my logon has been used for 27.5 years. The UMD ID (5362) should also be a clear indication on the age of the account. But, it seems, that this is being completely ignored in favour of schemes that require you uploading sensitive and personal information WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO DO.

Even if I was under-aged when the account was created, I would be more than old enough now and when this requirement came into place.

Why is this situation being blatantly ignored (there's been no feedback on this thread) when there is more than adequate documentary evidence in place to validate age?

I don't think any UMD user is trying to "frame" this as anything other than annoying. You were asking how this will stop children accessing the site and a couple of people have tried answering.

No one asked for this, and yes it's bullshit, but it's the law. Maybe it won't stop children viewing the site, it obviously won't stop paedophile priests, but it's something this site needs to have to operate in the UK. That's something I very much want to continue.

What would you rather? MM breaks the law or disregards over half of this site's user base just because you don't like the idea behind this law?

That is a good question, I'll flag your post for MM's attention so he can give a difinitive answer.

But I suspect it'll most likely be because the new laws require that everyone granted access to R and X material must have been age-verified by the new systems, with no exceptions for "had my account more than 18 years".

Out of curiosity I had ChatGPT analyse the requirements of the UK's Online Safety Act in this regard, and it states based on the actual legislation and Ofcom's documentation of it, that no, an account having existed for more than 18, 20, or 25 years does not comply with the act's requirements, anyone who can access adult material must be proved over-18 by one of the approved methods. I'm not going to post the whole chat as it's long - I first had the AI familiarise itself wih the Act and it's requirements related to adult content access, and then asked it the specific question about account ages (this is how you get the best from an AI, first "put it in the mindset" so it already has a non-biased view of the thing you're researching, and then ask the question). But it's summary was:


Note the OSA uses "age assurance" rather than "age verification" to refer to the new systems, as they are intended to assure that all accessing users are proved to be over-age.

I'd guess the various US and other country laws probably have similar requirements.

Erm, no! ChatGPT or any sort of AI is prone to errors or mis-interpretation. I've just had a look at the act and it states the following in section 12 (design to prevent children access): -

"(4)The duty set out in subsection (3)(a) requires a provider to use age verification or age estimation (or both) to prevent children of any age from encountering primary priority content that is harmful to children which the provider identifies on the service."

...and...

"(6)If a provider is required by subsection (4) to use age verification or age estimation for the purpose of compliance with the duty set out in subsection (3)(a), the age verification or age estimation must be of such a kind, and used in such a way, that it is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not a particular user is a child."

The important (legal) concept here is that a provider is required to use verification OR estimation to determine whether an account holder is of the required age.

Further information here: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-12-3-a

As I have previously stated, the account age of 27.5 years falls well within the scope of age estimation and, therefore, verification is not necessarily required (as stated in UK law).

Note that there is no mention of age within The Act - the definition of a child in UK Law is a person under 18 years of age consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

True, that was just meant as a quick look - proper detail would need to check everything required by all the individual US state ones at least (UMD being based in the US). But the Ofcom guidance (as the UK regulator charged with enforcing it) appears to rule out anything that doesn't include a "robust and dependable check" that positively identifies the current users as over 18. Given the anonymous nature of UMD accounts, I suspect account age would fail on that measure.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/age-assurance

But taking a wider view, this has all been inevitable for years, the original UK push was the result of a Daily Mail campaign way back when David Cameron was PM. The first attempts crashed and burned in Parliament but it was clear even then it was just a matter of time. The world is changing, fast. And as for privacy on line, that ship sailed years ago and isn't coming back.

Unfortunately, OFCOM's jurisdiction lies solely in UK and it's territories. It can coordinate with the relevant US authorities (if it's necessary) but no more than that.

Effectively, OFCOM cannot impose it's own rules on foreign-located web sites and it all falls back to what the UK Law states. That is EITHER verification OR estimation.

And UMD bases the age validation on the applicable law for that users country. The letter of the law.

Yes, but if UMD doesn't comply with the UK requirements then ultimately it gets blocked in the UK. Those of us tech-savvy will fairly easily get round that but lots of people won't, and the UK is fully a third of the global WAM marketplace, so losing UK access would have a big impact.

Then there are all the individual US state laws, which are all different - I'm sure MM will have looked into all of this in great detail.

And before everyone says "but VPNs" bear in mind there are politicians who want to extend proof of age requirements to VPN services. So that isn't a magic bullet, at best it buys a few years. They went after porn first because that's an easy target, very few if any people are going to stand up in public and defend the porn industry. But this is the begining, not the end. Gambling is probably next, and after that, who knows.

And just to be clear, I hate all of this and don't think it'll solve the "problem". But I'm also realistic enough to realise that opposing it is pointless, it's coming, whether we like it or not. MM is trying to do the best he can to implement what's legally needed without exposing a single byte more data than is required to make it compliant. And the privacy ship sailed long ago, so personally I'd no objection to verifying, given the number of companies and government agencies worldwide that already have my details from years of on-line purchases and international travel, one more makes no realistic difference. And now I can use Yoti to verify I'm over-18 on all other sites that accept it, without needing to do the ID check again, just the account on my phone is enough.