Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online Technology

UK Mobile Providers Introduce WAP Censorship 205

Posted by simoniker from the rude-ringtones dept.
godsmoke writes "UK mobile providers have formed an alliance to block 'inappropriate content' from cell phone users under the age of 18. 'It covers images, video, gambling, games, chatrooms and net access but not premium rate voice and SMS services', says a BBC News article. The Code authorizing the changes is called the 'Code of Practice', and: 'Content with an 18 certificate will only be available when the network operators verify the age of the user'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Mobile Providers Introduce WAP Censorship More

UK Mobile Providers Introduce WAP Censorship

Comments Filter:

  • Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSpoom ( 715771 ) * <{ten.00mrebu} {ta} {todhsals}> on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:32PM (#8025466) Homepage Journal
    "The new code is going to make many people ask why, if the mobile people can do it, the fixed internet people can't." - John Carr

    Here we go again...

    Cell phones are not the same thing as the Internet. The Internet was design such that if a node goes down, traffic will route around it. A similar thing would happen if censorship were to be pressed upon us at the ISP level (analogous to the cell phone service providers) as users would simply find ways around it with tunneling protocols, mirrors, and the like.

    And I have a feeling that this "new code" will be exploited as well. Of course it's a good thing that the phone companies want to protect children, but there are many ways that censorship like this can aid them in having a monopoly over other providers of mobile phone chat services. We'll just have to see what happens.

    • Re:Censorship (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Serveert ( 102805 )
      When was anything exploited with WAP? With 90% of WAP browsers you can simply send a "X-" header to make it think you're any phone number you choose, but have people abused that yet? Nope.

      You could abuse this but will this happen enough to be a problem? Probably not.

      Of course now we're talking about porn so the motiviations might be higher.
    • Under 18... UK mobile providers have formed an alliance to block 'inappropriate content' from cell phone users under the age of 18.

      So they can buy and smoke cigarettes, have sex, drink alchohol in a bar (with a meal) and join the army (die for their country), but they can't use mobile phones.

      I'd prefer the sort of solution where under 16s (children) were not allowed internet phones period. What reason can they have to use phones for other than calling people and SMS (text, not pic)? Guess when I wa

      • Re:Censorship... exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BoldAC ( 735721 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:44PM (#8025613)
        Surely you are trolling.

        16 year olds don't need internet phones? Who do you think will be programming these things for the next few years?

        If I were 16 right now, I would be hacking away at my cell phone like nobody's business.

        I have no problem with my kids checking their email or schedule or updating their website from their phone...

        I just want a way to know what they are viewing is age appropriate.

        AC
        • You are posting on /., surely you are not naive enough to realise unsupervised access to the internet is truely unsupervised.

          Kiddie filters are always being got around. Why do they need to check their email at any moment?! Why do they need to access a schedule, can't they remember their school timetable?! Why do they need to update a website from on the go?!

          Children need to be taught value in activities, else they'll live their life thinking everything is easy come, easy go.

          If you don't supervis
        • Surely you are trolling.

          Hu hom, probably I mixed up the thread ofyour parent :-D

          However I conclude from your post that you consider having sex with 16 is not "I just want a way to know what they are s/viewing/having?/ is age appropriate." age appropriated?

          I would like to moderate you as "interesting". But I prefered to post this.

          angel'o'sphere
      • I hate to be RAH-RAH, but I totally agree.

        Under 16s have no need to use the phone for anything else than making a call or texting. They don't need internet or pay-per-view type content on their phone. Parents should not let them have this sort of phone (hard law) and providers who provide this content (who can be traced as it is through a mobile network) should be prosecuted as hard as possible. But, of source, mobile phone/content providers will be as aggressive in marketing any kind of pay-per-view co
    • From the article ... in an attempt to protect children from online grooming.


      Because, heaven knows, we certainly wouldn't want a bunch of ungroomed cell-phone using teenagers running around.

    • just porn? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SHEENmaster ( 581283 )
      Censorship is wrong. I have absolutely no right to tell you what you may and may not view, read, or hear. By the same token, you ahve no right to tell me what I may view, read, or hear.

      Will this stop at porn? After porn, will they go on to hacking, and by extension computer science and mathematics?

      In other news, a teen was recently arrested for attempting to send products of prime numbers as text messages. He will be dealt with accordingly.
      • I'm very much opposed to censorship, but this system is only designed to restrict the information available to children (well, minors). I don't think society should deny adults the right to make their own decisions about what offends them, but I'm not sure the same is true of children. People have to learn the difference between right and wrong and acquire the mental tools for detecting dishonesty and unsound arguments - we're not born knowing these things. Children who don't have these skills yet are vulne
        • You wrote:

          I don't think society should deny adults the right to make their own decisions about what offends them, but I'm not sure the same is true of children.

          ... followed by:

          People have to learn the difference between right and wrong and acquire the mental tools for detecting dishonesty and unsound arguments - we're not born knowing these things.

          You're contradicting yourself. Which way do you want to go?
        • I object to being treated as if I have no rights. I am a human being, nothing less; society has no more a right to shield me from "dangerous" ideas than it does you.

  • Great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by BoldAC ( 735721 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:35PM (#8025496)

    I see no reason why when somebody purchases the phone, the account can't have a birthdate associated with it... if I wish.

    Then my daughter's phone only allows age-appropriate material.

    I like it. If I could set it to keep all the older guys from calling her, I would pay triple what I pay now.

    Ac

    • These cell phones have wonderful color displays on them. They can show porn images better than my TRS-80 days of 2400 baud...

      I agree. This is not censorship. This is protection of children.

      I can "monitor" my child using the internet. It is more difficult to "monitor" what my child looks at on his/her cellphone.

      youjauta

      • Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lokedhs ( 672255 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:42PM (#8025595)
        Why do children have to be "protected" from nudity, while it's perfectly appropriate for them to see someone head blown off in the latest blockbuser hollywood movie?

        On the other hand, please don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question, meant to make people think.

        • The parent post appears to be using porn as an example. Few of us would want our 15 years downloading videos of the "faces of death" either.

          The point is not if porn is bad... or if violence is bad...

          The point is that parents have the responsibility of monitoring their children and their children's actions.

          That's what seperates the good parents from the bad parents.

          AC
        • It's not nudity per se, it's moresome jizzfests and barnyard love that you probably don't want them to see.
      • You could just buy him or her a regular cell phone, one without fancy color displays and such. Or just not buy him one at all - they don't really need them anyways in nearly every case.
      • It is more difficult to "monitor" what my child looks at on his/her cellphone.

        Who pays the bill ?

    • Re:Great! (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you could set it to keep all the older guys from calling her, all the guys would suddenly become 16 year old girls, and the phone company will still charge you triple what you pay now.
    • I like it. If I could set it to keep all the older guys from calling her, I would pay triple what I pay now.

      Because, obviously, forcing her to see them in person is such a better idea...

  • How are they going to know if someone is 18 or not?

    On the web, all you have to do is click "Yes" or
    "I agree" and your in, it's not exactly "secure".

    I can just see "Press 1 if your over 18, now".

    • Since they ask your birth date before they give you the phone they can tell your age using teh simple formula of (today - birthday) = age.
    • That was exactly my first thought. It can't work on the phone account purchaser, since adults might buy a phone for a minor, or even just use one (and then be banned from seeing content) so it almost has to be an opt-in system.

      That's no protection whatsoever. Seems to be a case of "Look at us, we're taking steps to block objectionable content, we're the good guys .... now give us all your money."

      That's not even getting into who defines what's blocked, or what happens if I'm roaming in their area.

      althou

  • Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP&ColinGregoryPalmer,net> on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:36PM (#8025508) Homepage
    What if I as the parent of a 17 year old, give them permission to look at porn? Can I have that block removed from their phone... a phone I most likely bought and paid for in the first place?


    --
    In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]

    American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Funny)

      by 3V1LDaemon ( 727824 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:40PM (#8025559)
      What if I as the parent of a 17 year old, give them permission to look at porn?

      Can you adopt me, please?
    • I'm pretty sure they will not give a crap if you give your consent. The bill will be in your name anyways, so they won't even know a kid is using it.

    • Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)

      by Loosewire ( 628916 ) *
      I read in the metro this morning ( hardly a good source but still) that the service will be switched on as requested by parents - however the bbc doesent mention this so as to its truth (ive emailed orange) ill email you there reply
    • You might be afoul of the law. I'm not sure, but I think a dad giving his kid a playboy might count as "corruption of a minor", at least in the states.
    • At one point in my life, I thought porn was disgusting, as was sex and all that stuff. As I grew a little older, all that changed. I feel that if the kids are old enough to want to look at porn, they're probably at the right age to look at stuff like that.
    • What if I as the parent of a 17 year old, give them permission to look at porn? Can I have that block removed from their phone... a phone I most likely bought and paid for in the first place?

      Yes you can, but you are then officially identified as an unfit parent. Your children will be removed from your custody, and you will be instructed not to have any more.

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:02PM (#8025807) Homepage
      What if I as the parent of a 17 year old, give them permission to look at porn?

      I'd be more worried if I was the parent of a 17-year-old who isn't already looking at porn, parental permission nonwithstanding.
  • If it's left up to the phone companies, I suspect they'll be as good at it as most bars. Either that, or there will be a way around it by showing that you are eligible for a credit card, which the companies will then add a hefty charge to.

  • Inflamatory Title (Score:5, Informative)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:38PM (#8025531)
    They are implementing something on their own before a regulatory body tells them to implement it. Kudos to them. Basically they are implementing on cellphones exactly what a vast number of the public have been calling for in the internet, namely making the place safe for kids, and since pretty much every kid over here in the UK has a cellphone, I think this is going to be seen as a positive step forward. Yes, by all means shout the generic shout "but the parents should supervise the kids", but seriously, wap enabled cellphones are an epidemic with the under 18 population over here, and its trivial for someone to purchase one without a parents knowledge, so its a lot easier to supervise a kid on a PC than it is on one of these.

    • Re:Inflamatory Title (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Telastyn ( 206146 )
      They're not making the place safe for kids. They're implimenting filters, which have been proven time and again to be wholy ineffective in even doing censorship effectively, let alone making kids safe.
  • For the benifit of people outside the UK ill tell you what this is, this is some total bullshit FUD bandwaggon that everyone and their dog is jumping on. Last week it was all over the front pages that the internet was to blaim for pedophiles and that in 1988 35 pedophiles were arrested but last year it was 600 (figures from my memory, might be wrong). Ofcourse this means that the internet has some magic way of taking normal people and somehow turning them into pedophiles! the result - total witch hunt and F
    • I doubt it applies to WAP - they're talking about the current/next generation of HTML browsing phones - the 3G stuff is (theoretically)* as fast as a broadband connection.

      * I say theoretically because if it goes anything like GPRS you'll be lucky to get 1K/s on a good day.
    • It's not FUD at all.

      Porn distributors exploit their customers in much the same way as drugs pushers, as well as exploiting the raw material. (No-one cares what happens to the opium poppy either as long as it makes heroin that sells well.)

      I'm glad to see mobile phone companies taking such simple action to protect children from harm that other customers will inevitably use the network to distribute.

      It WOULD NOT be practical to keep children from the streets because drugs pushers use the streets to, IT IS p

    • Re:FUD (Score:2)

      by Teun ( 17872 )
      You are SO right.
      It's again a TYPICAL british tabloid driven story that's is now realy getting out of hand

      The whole thing is not so much about minors accessing porn, even these FUD spreaders know tha's not REALY going to be a problem, it's just a bunch of naked people after all.
      There CAN be a problem with paedophiles, but it is indeed unprooven and unlikely there are suddenly more of these sicko's than say 10 years ago.

    • in 1988 35 pedophiles were arrested but last year it was 600 posessing child porn was not an offence before 1988, hence numbers were not included in that figure

  • Last place for free speach: Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:44PM (#8025620)
    The true test of the right to the freedom of speech is when you allow speech you don't like or disagree with. Well, thank *** that Slashdot still lets us say whatever the **** we want, whenever the **** we want to. It will be a cold day in **** before this place censors us.

    I say "Three Cheers" to free speech, Slashdot, OSDN, and even competition sites to Slashdot such as ******.com or ***********.com

    Thanks again for keeping it real, Slashdot!

    • hmm... I wasn't aware that slashdot made you type asterisks...

  • Age of consent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:50PM (#8025687)

    I always found it funny that, in the UK, you can get married and have sex at the age of 16; yet you can't look at porno until you are 18. So it's possible to indulge in the most depraved sexual acts imaginable, but you're not allowed to view depictions of the same acts. Crazy!

    • I always found it funny that, in the UK, you can get married and have sex at the age of 16; yet you can't look at porno until you are 18.

      Uh?? You need parental consent to marry at 16, and your parent can get an X rated video from the rental shop for you. What's the difference? (Apart from being able to watch porn online and on telly without parental consent of course.)

      • You need parental consent to marry at 16,

        The law does not require marriage before sex. It only requires that all participants are 16 or over and consenting.

        and your parent can get an X rated video from the rental shop for you

        Not according to the law. The law prohibits the SUPPLY of videos to those judged by the BBFC to be too young to watch them, whether you are the parent of the individual or not. If you go into a shop and ask for an 18-rated video "for your 15 year old son", the assistant servin

        • Not according to the law. The law prohibits the SUPPLY of videos to those judged by the BBFC to be too young to watch them, whether you are the parent of the individual or not. If you go into a shop and ask for an 18-rated video "for your 15 year old son", the assistant serving you is obliged by law to refuse service.

          Not in the slightest. The BBFC ratings have no legal backing. When a cinema refuses to allow a minor to see an 18-certificate film, then that is at the cinema's discretion, and has no groun

    • So would that mean if there were more than two prople involved theyd have to be blindfolded?
    • In Nevada, you have to be 21 to gamble, 21 to drink, 18 to see a striiper, if there is no alcohol. But in some counties, you only need to be 14 to go to a brothel.

  • There always will be a way to avoid censorship and control. I think it is best for parents to educate their children to have a critical sense to judge what they see/hear, and to choose not expose thenselves to material they do not have maturity to judge, than expecting others to decide what your children should ou should not see.
    • I love it! I know that x is bad cause I know what x means so if someone says x in a movie Im watching then I shouldn't watch it cause I'd hear x.

      Let me guese, "I shouldn't play that video game, its too violent." or even "Sorry but no thanks on the ice-cream"
    • You are forgetting the fact that no law can prevent the ignorant and stupid from becoming parents.

      Indeed, all the evidence is that the ignorant and stupid are the most likley to become under-age parents with inadequate income to care for the kids they did not intend to have.

      "Could do better, must try harder", may be a way for teachers to avoid their own reponsibility on a school report, but as society's advice to those that can't cope, even if they wanted to, its as bad as the behaviour it comments on.

  • Art? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It would be interesting to see what would happen if users tried to view some artwork from, say, the Louvre (or most other art galleries), such as:

    Venus [louvre.fr]

    Hermaphrodite [louvre.fr]

    Diana the huntress [louvre.fr]

    The Turkish Bath [louvre.fr]

    I'm not sure whether to include a "Not safe for work" declaration or not, especially for the last one :-) For those who wish to play it safe, here's the caption [louvre.fr], so you don't miss everything:

    "Completed when he was 82, this composition was the result of many studies which Ingres made from 1807 onwar

  • block the important things first ! (Score:4, Funny)

    by pytheron ( 443963 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @06:56PM (#8025749) Homepage
    All say 'aye' those who would gladly welcome providers blocking annoying ring tones and overly loud 'SMS received' beeps ! Never mind innapropriate content, these social nuisances are enough to make you kiiiilllll !

  • Big deal (Score:2, Insightful)

    by madpierre ( 690297 )
    Hardly anyone uses WAP anyway.
    • Really?

      The daily average for WAP page impressions in November increased to 31 million from 12 million in November 2002. The cumulative total for 2003 is now 8.2 billion, beating the MDA's prediction of 8 billion impressions in 2003 as a whole.

      more here:
      http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/040107/0956000872 _1.html

  • You had to see this coming in the UK (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I mean, it's just "another" logical step on the road that the UK has been rushing down--a "liberal" (in the classical sense of the word) surveillance state. And as a Yank, I'm not crowing--our current regime is doing its best to catch up to you guys. Each step is "logical" and defensible on its own--and it always leads to the next step, which is equally "logical" and defensible. And the grounds of the logic and defensibility are almost always the same: protect the children, defeat the terrorists, stop drug
    • Nobody's stopping people aged 18 and over from receiving adult content, they're only trying to shield children from that content.

      I know of a 12 year-old that has her own mobile - many children even younger than that age have their own phones too, so doesn't it make sense to put in some form of protection that stops them from being sent adult content without their requesting it?

      A mobile phone is as much of a commodity these days as a bag of sugar. You can buy a pay-as-you-go mobile phone (ie, one without a
    • You also have to know that in the UK, the media has spent the last 30 years portraying men as demons, barely under control maniacs, etc with no redeaming features.

      If you come from outside it image of men in the UK is terrifying. This frenzy of over-compliance with feminist agenda is as scary as any anti-islamic frenzy in the USA, and has been going on for lnger, and is much less challenged.

      For some reason, no one has noticed that In the UK, men are the down trodden minority Thats right - there are 1.08 wom

  • The government (in the US, at least, and presumably in the UK as well) already restrict a variety of things based on age. Speaking for the US, age determines when people can:
    • Purchase pR0n
    • Purchase tobacco products
    • Purchase alcohol
    • Vote
    • Join the armed services
    • Get married
    • Enter into legally-binding contracts

    In most of these cases, parental consent lowers or eliminates this age barrier. If the technology allows it, I don't see it as being anything new or different. And parental permission (mom or dad

  • Information control is mind control. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by leereyno ( 32197 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:07PM (#8025856) Homepage Journal
    I never cease to be amazed that the time, energy, and money people will spend trying to "protect" young people from the things they don't want them to see.

    The reason for these efforts is simple, information control is the only effective means of mind control. Control what people see and hear and you control what they think. Much of child rearing seems to be institutionalized brainwashing. This made no sense to me when I was a child or a teenager and it makes even less sense to me now at 31, or at least no rational sense.

    There is no rational reason to want to hide things from your children. There are plenty of irrational (and downright sick) reasons I can think of though, most of which are a combination of stupidity and insanity.

    Unfortunately I don't think this will ever change because that would require human nature with all its failing and weaknesses to be improved and that hasn't happened in 10,000 years or more.

    Lee

  • turning it off (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TheCoop1984 ( 704458 )
    How will the kids/adults turn the censorship off when they reach 18? they can hardly go to their parents and say 'hey, I want to look at porn now, could you unblock the phone please?'. Or will control automatically pass to them when they reach 18, and why doesnt it say anything about this in the article?
  • Now on the other hand, if you need to get your porn fix portably, most digital cameras with removable storage will work as portable JPG viewers.

    Seriously though, this really isn't news - AOL has had parental controls for as long as I can remember, and offering content filters as an optional service isn't censorship. Yea, it sucks if you have parents that try to restrict and control every aspect of your life, but finding ways around your parents restrictions (and the experiences learned when you get caught

  • This should be interesting (Score:3, Funny)

    by eyeball ( 17206 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:17PM (#8025943) Journal
    I can't wait for this to hit the U.S.

    "Your request to 'verizon.com' has been blocked due to inappropriate content. Thank you for using Cingular"

  • List URLs on Phone Bill (Score:3, Interesting)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:19PM (#8025961)
    I dunno how UK phone companies bill, but why not list the URL's and the phone numbers accessed by each phone on the bill? That way Mom and Dad will know what Junior has been looking at.
    • A heck of a lot of UK phones - probably the majority of kids phones - aren't on a contract and bill. They buy (more expensive) airtime as and when it's needed over the counter.

      This wouldn't solve the issue of chatrooms either. I have to admit I'd never heard of a WAP chatroom before today and can't imagine many experiences less pleasant than trying to participate in a chatroom with a mobile phone screen and keypad, but if they can lock out unmoderated chatrooms for the kids then great.

  • BBC Radio 1 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Inda ( 580031 ) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Monday January 19, 2004 @07:20PM (#8025966) Journal
    BBC Radio 1 reported this earlier. One of the final comments was that the operators were concerned about kids telling fibs about their age to get around the censorship.

    Any kid who listened to this now knows they can lie about their age and probably get away with it.

    Well done Radio 1.

  • This Affects Me (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm 17, in the UK, and have a mobile phone that I use with my Zaurus. I use the mobile's GPRS net access to chat to my friends cheaper than SMS. I pray this is just limited to WAP...

    The really ominous thing about this though is most UK phone owners are under-18... and notice how the chatrooms and facilities will be 'moderated'? Can anyone say 'silenced disgruntled users' and 'targetted advertising'?
  • IMHO, the age limit is a red herring.

    To prove your age, you have to prove your IDENTITY. This gives the ISP, and thus the government, the IDENTITY of each adult user who choses to certify his age. And THAT lets them track the browsing (and other internet activity) of all such users, and target those who engage in any activity they dislike.

    Goodbye anonymity.

    Imagine this in the hands of a repressive regime.

    Now imagine that YOUR government has suddenly gone bad...
  • Long ago, email was controlled at the "ISP" on arpanet (even though Gore hadn't yet invented the Internet). Email was a privilege, and required special permissions. Today, ISP's don't generally care what you send through their services, but often give "opt in" abilities to filter your email. I see cellphones in a similar state as the arpanet of old, and it's been taking off these past couple years.

    This agreement among the Cellphone Providers should help cut spam, among other things such as parental comp
  • Of course it won't make the "uncensored" phones any more popular with the kids...

Slashdot Top Deals

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Close