+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Porn Filters (/showthread.php?tid=45765)
RE: Porn Filters - admiral decker - 29-07-2014 17:04
(29-07-2014 15:26 )munch1917 Wrote: I'm not a Virgin customer either, but I'm pretty sure that is NOT the standard 'porn filter' there.
It appears to be some sort of hybrid thing with a pc based component linked to the Virgin database backend. It also appears to be an old thing
Yes you're right munch, that's an old thing.
I'm not sure what elgar's found there, but it's not "Child Safe", the filter introduced by Virgin a few months ago.
RE: Porn Filters - eccles - 30-07-2014 01:10
(28-07-2014 21:56 )admiral decker Wrote:(28-07-2014 21:18 )eccles Wrote: As for whitelisting specific sites, forget it. blah blah blah
On the contrary, I've just checked my Talktalk account and I find that it does allow whitelisting. ...
Happy to be proved wrong, perhaps TalkTalk offer a more sophisticated service. Interesting that they are so widely separated from the pack when it comes to take up too, 36% compared to less than 10% for the rest.
Elgars product might be a bundled piece of software rather than the mandatory control that Cameron forced ISPs to adopt. These things come and go, and are often customised and combined with antivirus and spam filters, but are popular with people who are nervous about using the internet - I know several families in that category.
Camerons one is network level and applies to anything using the connection to access HTML (web pages) - PC, laptop, Mac, phone, tablet, games consoles, Raspberry Pi, Arduino - any type of device even if it cant run Windows, even a smart TV.
Ofcoms report says Virgin has no customisation options, its on or off, TalkTalk has 9 categories, Sky 10 and BT 16. BT apparently has an option to turn off controls for one hour or always trust a specific site.
Sky say they receive 110 reports a month from customers about misclassified sites, with an average of 27 sites a month accepted as miscategorised. (They dont say in which direction).
The BT "unavoidable choice" box gives 2 1/2 times more space to I Want Parental Controls than No Thanks. If that were an election ballot form - say for Scottish independence - it would be ruled biased and banned. People even obsess about which option comes first (isnt No before Yes when alphabetic order is used?).
Sky gives equal prominence.
I doubt there are detailed stats on customers age, gender and family make up by option selected, but Ofcom say each ISPs customer base differs from the national average. (Is this stating stating the b****ing obvious? Internet takeup among the over 70s is lower than the national average.) The national average is 40% of homes do not have resident children. BT estimated 75% of their customers do not have children under 18. Sky estimated above 60% do not have children. No figures were given for TalkTalk or Virgin. (Ofcom presents the figures the other way round, making direct comparison less easy).
So far as I can see the research does not ask why parents have not implemented parental filters, apart from a vague unquantified suggestion that parents might use other tools. It does not even establish how many parents are among the customer base. This is despite the Culture Secretary Maria Miller asking Ofcom for research into this "I would also like ... as far as it is available, any research into why parents may chose not to apply parental control tools". (OK that referred to the 1st report, not the 2nd, and says so far as it is available, but you get my drift.)
No hint that parents might not want them, or not might want to exercise their own discretion instead of surrendering control to some anonymous remote censor that is tacitly Government approved.
(Incorrect use of the word "may" by the way. If anyone is responsible for correct use of English language it is the Culture Secretary. The reason parents may chose not to apply filters is that the option exists. She means why.)
Some of the porn filters include sites that contain sex toys, which might block Anne Summers, despite it not being a registered Sex Shop. Some block erotic stories and textual descriptions of sexual acts, that could conceivably block any online bookseller offering excerpts from 50 Shades Of Grey, though that is just speculation.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/internet_safety_measures_2.pdf - in the Internet section.
There has been very little comment in the press that Cameron forced this through by dikdat. Not a single word of Parliamentary discussion. No law passed. No scrutiny by our elected representatives. Not even an Order In Council. Its the kind of authority that other well known democrat, Putin, wields. He dislikes. He orders. It gets blocked.
RE: Porn Filters - elgar1uk - 31-07-2014 12:21
I apologise for posting incorrect information, although it shows that Virgin were experimenting with parental controls some time ago.
Anyway this is the correct information for Virgin's recent filter:
http://store.virginmedia.com/discover/broadband/security/web-safe.html
As previously posted in this thread it is no more than a simple on or off system, so I think it's usefulness must be pretty limited.
RE: Porn Filters - eccles - 29-08-2014 01:22
DCMS formally informs the European Commission of a draft UK regulation to incorporate ATVOD’s impractical age verification rules into UK law
Enjoy online porn while you still can.
From Melon Farmers
Quote:On the 7th July 2014, the UK Government Department of Culture, Media, Sport and Censorship notified the European Commission of its draft regulation toincorporateATVOD’s impractical age verification rules for accessing hardcore porn on the internet into UK law.The DCMS document states:
The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014
Main Content
Part 4A of the Communications Act 2003 (inserted by the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2009 and 2010) transpose the requirements of Directive 2010/13/EU in relation to on-demand programme services. Section 368E(2) provides that on-demand material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen must only be made available in a manner which secures that such persons will not normally see or hear it. This draft instrument amends section 368E in two ways. First, it provides that any material that the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has issued a R18 classification certificate in respect of (or any material that would have been issued such a certificate) (hard-core pornography) must not be included in an on-demand service unless it is behind effective access controls which verify that the user is aged eighteen or over. Secondly, it provides that any material that the BBFC has refused to give a classification certificate in respect of (or any material that would have been refused such a certificate) must not be included in an on-demand service at all. (more)
RE: Porn Filters - lovebabes56 - 21-11-2014 06:27
Would think we now have reached the point where our internet usage as an individual faces it's most serious threat with the new law that comes into force on 01 Dec and with further EU regulation being put to the vote in April.
Either way our freedom of use of the internet is about to hit us harder than we dare to think. Whether this means we would face a rise in package prices or more stringent checks when buying a new package when changing telecom providers we'll probably find out.
Would we have to tell our telecomm provider that we would be using adult sites at the start of any conversation before they can provide us with a bundle?
RE: Porn Filters - circles_o_o_o - 21-01-2015 23:44
Sky have announced they are to block porn by default unless customers opt out :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30896813
RE: Porn Filters - admiral decker - 22-01-2015 02:46
(21-01-2015 23:44 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: Sky have announced they are to block porn by default
For their existing customers that is. Sky have been doing this with new customers for quite some time.
RE: Porn Filters - HannahsPet - 22-01-2015 15:54
yeah when saw headlines SKY to block porn i thought it was like the so called blocks it did for torrent sites. was panicing for a min then read the article just that there broadband shield will be on till u undo it
i have mine off all the time now cos it wouldnt let me use adultwork as it said it was a phishing site
RE: Porn Filters - HEX!T - 22-01-2015 17:36
you might wanna send adult work an email with proof. they can then decide if they want to sue sky for liable if there not a phishing site.
coz that has very negative connotations to a legitimate business.
RE: Porn Filters - tony confederate - 23-01-2015 04:14
There might be a genuine problem on Adultwork's side. Facebook was being reported as a phishing site at one time and it turned out there was some tech problem on Facebook itself which was causing it. In any event Adultwork could easily ask Sky to reclassify their site.