Age verification

Maybe so, but it’s a big maybe. Remember, corporations like these have far more resources than any individual. Unless it’s a class action, one person going up against them is fighting with a toothpick against a tank. Technically it’s possible, but it would take years, the right legal team, and frankly a perfect storm of circumstances to even stand a chance. And even then? Most cases don’t go the distance. They get settled. Why? Because it’s easier for a company to quietly throw a pile of cash at someone than to overhaul their system or admit fault. That’s the game — and they’ve mastered it.

The problem is, let’s be honest — the people we vote into power rarely care about things like this. And even when they do? Sooner or later, the system chews them up. Power corrupts, greed creeps in, and the issues they once cared about get tossed aside. The only real shot at something like this being handled right? Is if someone disabled, or someone who has a disabled member in the family or relative etc someone who actually cares and has seen the struggle of said disabled family member first hand, holds that power. Otherwise? Don’t hold your breath. The system isn’t designed to protect you — it’s designed to protect itself.

Hi Lee,
I've read they're not going to ban VPNs for the time being at least, because the government uses them. But I suppose they could always implement legislation that only allows certain people to use them. You could never ban them outright anyway, because apparently people can create their own VPN if they know what they're doing. But I've heard that people promoting the use of VPNs could get fined. As for the RNIB, as it's a tech issue, it might be worth writing to the RNIB Tech Talk podcast to highlight the issue. I don't know how good or successful the RNIB as an organisation are at suing and getting results. I get the impression the NFB in the US are much better at that sort of thing.

AS stated above, to sue, you have to have a cause of action. To elaborate, we don't put you on trial for a criminal offence of...being not very nice. NO no, you're on trial for theft, murder, manslaughter and so on. If there is discrimination here, it is indirect discrimination butt arguably objectively justified or unavoidable indirect discrimination. Even then, most discrimination issues to be actionable must arise within the context of a particular cause of action e.g. claims for discrimination in respect of one's employment rights. Besides, it's not the RNIB being discriminated against so it could not sue. It is possible in certain circumstances for organisations to sue on behalf of individuals, but this only really works in something called proceedings for judicial review, which is not applicable to the scenario you legal eagles are war-gaming. Group Litigation Orders can be made in this country to simulate US class actions but only where there is an underlying cause of action and even then very, very rarely. The US is an anomaly in its trigger-happiness for kings of torts, luckily. So I'm far from convinced that there would be a cause of action and if there were, it would be a case fraught with difficulty. Besides, whom do you want the RNIB to sue?

On the RNIB NFB comparison, note that the RNIB is a charity and therefore has to be mindful of litigation it initiates, partly to remain within the law of charities and partly because it is funded by private donations. How much are you willing to give the RNIB to fight the case for you on the basis that costs would probably run into the millions by the time it reached the Supreme Court, as it probably would?

No no, you can't litigate yourself to Voiceover compatibility, folks. Best get on the side of those of us digging out ridiculous mainstream examples of how the Act does not work.

While I'm on my feet, Mr Speaker, which merchant started the ball rolling about banning VPNS? I refer the Honourable Lady, or Gentleman as the case may be, to the government's own internet security advice, which advises individuals to use a VPN when, for example, connecting to an unsecure wireless network. That's before we even get started on the fact that most companies worth their salt, to say nothing of government departments, local authorities, charities including the dear old RNIB (I'm guessing), and so on, have corporte VPNs for all their employees busy sherking from home to access. Banning VPNs would be like trying to take the eggs out of a cake. I suppose Peter Kyle would say that in making that observation I am on the side of...erm.... Dr Harold Shipman?

There is hope, folks, there is a better way: I have just seen a poll from More in common who have found that 75% of the public think the savile remark was inappropriate and that Peter Kyle should apologise. bit of a problem given they've doubled down on it since! Luckily for us, I think it's such a disastrously silly attempt to close the debate over this law's effectiveness down that it has achieved precisely the opposite and got folk having a serious look at what they previously assumed would be a good guys' law to protect kids from harmful online content.

Hi Bingo,
Well personally, I'm not bothered about the RNIB suing anybody or not, because I don't agree with this law in the first place. I can't advocate for making something accessible if I don't even agree with the thing I want to be made accessible. It was a suggestion for how something could be forced to be made accessible, but obviously a bad one, since you know more about the law than I do. A quick solution to this would be to use Aira, get a sighted friend or family member to help you, or use a VPN. I'm all for quick solutions. I've always thought it would be quicker for me to find and implement a work-around for something, rather than writing to someone and explaining why something doesn't work and how it should work for me, rather than waiting for the next update or possible legal amendment to come along.

Interesting who decides what should be accessible and some who do not agree. As Mr. Spock stated, fascinating. The accessibility police now will decide.

aGreed, a quick call to aira to help you get round the age verification process will do very nicely, so long as the Aira volunteer realises that helping you puts them on the side of Jimmy Savile. Incidentally, it's so annoying how even in deploying this dim-witted analogy, Peter Kyle chose an entirely inappropriate analogy to deploy! savile never went online! Never in his life! He got up to what he got up to by means of the pillar of the establishment that is the BBC...the sort of activities the then Directof of Public Prosecutions' team failed to prosecute him for. what happened to that DPP afterwards - did he go on to do anything else? But to return to the topic, I agree that the law is woefully inadequate. There does have to be a solution to youngsters accessing inappropriate stuff online as Gen alpha is promising to be emotionally burnt out by the time they're 20, and that's in a best case scenario. This manifestly untechnological legislation is not the solution to a technological problem. at least building a solution from the ground up means accessibility stands a better chance.

It seems a long time ago that Lee started this post. Right now, my understanding is that the app appears to not be accessible but none of us have actually been forced to use it yet.

Has anyone tried to contact the company responsible yet? I don't know much about legal claims but I am reasonably sure you need to make a complaint to the company first and give them a chance to address the issues. It might be that they have no idea about the issue and would welcome the input. It might be that they are already trying to address it. Or it might be that they just don't give a monkey's. But as far as I know, we are just presuming the latter case.

The other thing being mentioned is to involve the RNIB which I think is a good idea. Much as I personally trust most of you on here, disgusting though you are apparently, we don't mean much in the grand scheme of things and having someone with a bit of authority do a more formal evaluation would be very helpful.

They might also have a better chance of getting a reply if they ask the question. If not, then the natural progression would be to mainstream media - UK news channels like BBC news for example, or even tech sites like the Verge as I mentioned before.

If we can get a bit of weight behind the question it will put as in a good position, and if we are still ignored then possibly the legal route can be looked at, but it would be a last resort.

All your companies would do would be to say, rightly, that they are doing what they have to do in obedience to an Act of Parliament. Parliament is sovereign. Parliament can legislate in such a way as breaches human rights, if it wishes. the courts cannot strike down an act of Parliament. I'm afraid there's no work for lawyers here, apart from as campaign activists. who can sue? Sue in what? Sue whom? Asking for what remedy? How would such litigation be funded? Besides, aren't you sick of all these flamin' lawyers? YYou've got far more chance getting somewhere, seriously, if you write to the only man who has really mugged up on this law, namely zia Yousuf, and point out its indirectly discriminatory nature to him. In fact, that's the best idea anyone's had this side of the M25 - well done, Bingo old lad!