Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No more taboo :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I don’t know where that came from, but could you put it back wherever it manifested from, lock it in an airtight box, strap the box down with 1/2" chains attached to a concrete base, and then take off and nuke the entire site from orbit - it’s the only way to be sure.

You need serious help - have you spoken to your partner about these fantasies you have?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Where is this company based though? The best I have managed to find is that apparently some of its website registrations had been moved to the Seychelles.

If true, then the chances of them ever paying a single penny of that fine are slim to none.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Very true have to look as if they are doing something. Yet another waste of money.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Complete waste of time, they will not pay the fine as Ofcom cannot enforce it on a company outside of the UK. Think of all the tax payers money wasted on investigating this and then have no return for all that effort. Ofcom are very quick to say who they have issued fines to, however they will not say who have actually paid them verses who has not.

More detailed info here

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/...e-verification


The reality is that even if the government blocked the IP's for these sites anyone who still wants to visit them will just circumnavigate the issue via a VPN

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

If you check on ofcoms site, they handily list the actual websites (and ofcom isnt age protected :rolleyes:).

Some of the sites that were run by 8579 LLC have now been transferred to other companies.
Aside from just blocking the UK, these sites can just move companies, leaving the one "fined" as defunct.

Just another example of how utterly clueless the people who dreamed this up are. :dozey:
None of these sites are likely to be "accidently" viewed (by anyone), you have to go looking for them.

Imagine the ofcom job description ;
"You will be required to spend all day searching the internet for porn sites, and viewing them, to determine if they have age checks". :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It's like the reincarnation of Mary Whitehouse :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Online Safety Act the joke that just keeps on giving.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It was brought to the attention of police that there were pictures of a 12 year old girl from the agd of 5 upwards being sexually abused circulating on the internet.

In order to try and trace her to stop the abuse, the police asked facebook to look for pictures of her on Facebook as parents often upload pictures of their children.

At first they claimed that it couldn't technically be done, the police said yes it can. They then refused on the grounds that it would breach privacy. In the end the police made them do it and the little girl was found & the offender dealt with (her mother had no idea that this had been happening.)

Now that various countries are trying to protect the vulnerable from inappropriate on line behaviour, companies are claiming that their protection is extremely important to them and taking measures to show this (eg Instagram can now alert parents to inappropriate searches.)

I think this shows that, left to their own devices, social media sites don't give a toss and would do anything to be uncooperative.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

The little girl is called Lucy and you can hear what happened here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct8yw4

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No thanks Richard, it's bad enough just knowing this crap happens, I've got no desire to go delving deep into the gory details . . .

Maybe others do, but it's a no from me.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

HarmBlock is a system that is embedded into the operating system (so can't be switched off) of devices to prevent inappropriate activity.

It will prevent explicit harmful imagery from being seen, shot, shared, produced and stored. The first device from Nokia is now available with more to follow.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I didn't think Nokia were still players in the game, who the heck uses Nokia nowadays?

Majority of kids (whom incidentally we/you are trying to protect) cry and throw a tantrum if they can't have the latest iPhone.

*on bandwagon jump they do*

https://external-content.duckduckgo....23b&ipo=images

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Who definess "inappropriate activity" ?
Who would want something you cannot control (see above) ?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

These phones will be invaluable to children and other vulnerable members of society, those who have no wish to be exposed to the seedy side of the internet or where the owner of the device/bill payer does not wish to facilitate inappropriate use.

https://harmblock.com/

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You dont need a special phone to avoid the "seedy side of the internet" side. Myself and millions of others manage to do it just fine.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

That doesn't need a special app or device.


Don't go looking for it and you won't be exposed to it :shrug:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Both of the above are absolutely correct.

The UK should legislate a 'Darwin' rule of law, the sort of thing that says 'you've been warned constantly and restrictions have been put in place, yet you still knowingly did something that could cause you harm. Don't come crying.'

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

That's the whole point, some will go looking for it and this is to prevent them from gaining access.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Well if they were warned and told not to, then still go looking for it, that personally is a them issue. We shouldn't all have to be monitored and told what we can look at because some are not smart enough to take notice of the advice and seek it out anyway. :shrug:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Those that go looking will usually find, by one means or another, no matter how many preventative checks are in place . . . or how many times they've been warned (from an early age).

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Exactly, nail meet head!

Also if this is baked into the OS, then it has to be adopted and incorporated as part of the OS by the manufacturers - can you imagine Apple and Google doing this? For iOS and pure Android, it’ll be a flat no! Some forks of Android may incorporate it but it be very niche and have a tiny market share.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You may well be right, but it will be useful for work phones and extremely useful for parents who wish to prevent their children from accessing inappropriate content or stop predators sending sexual predatory messages (and stop them from sending naked pictures of themselves as predators so often like to try and persuade them to do.) These are then posted to paedophile websites or used to blackmail them for money or to force them to send even more explicit content.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I'm a pensioner, I often get emails and unsolicited phone calls that urge me to click a strange link, or 'speak to an advisor', or try to con me into thinking my Amazon account has been compromised.

Where's my protection? I'm at an age where senility is allegedly as bad as being a 7 yr old again and I demand protection from the nasty people trying to take advantage of my vulnerability.

:PP:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

There now gramps, nurse will be along with your ovaltine and sleeping pills in a moment. Take a seat. :p:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Shut it junior :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I can help you with that - PM your bank details and passwords, and I absolutely guarantee you that I will ensure that no one else will be able to take any money from your accounts…

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I never had you down as an exiled Namibian Prince :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Love it:D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

MPs vote down social media ban for under-16s

MPs have voted against a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media.

The Conservatives had pushed for the move via an amendment to the government's flagship education legislation currently going through parliament: the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

It had been backed by the House of Lords, but was defeated in the Commons on Monday night by 307 votes to 173.

https://news.sky.com/story/mps-vote-...r-16s-13517545

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by being denied 'access' to sites unless I create an account and log in (for my safety apparently)

Take Twitch as an example, I used to browse the games section to see if there was anything I fancied trying, watching some gameplay to see it I liked it.
Now I can't do that because some of the content may be 'distressing' or 'harmful' to my well being . . at the age of 72 you're a bit bloody late :D

On the other hand, I can easily watch the news programs and see (often with images) stories of people being stabbed, shot, mown down by cars, and desperate people starving while their homes are being blown to smithereens by missiles & bombs.

It seems to me that Real Life isn't classed as 'harmful' to me as watching a movie or video game. :rolleyes:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It's to cover themselves because they have no proof of your age, but I take your point about the news.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Does this mean that parents will have to police their own kids online activity :shocked:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Ideally this should be being done anyway, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No, no we don't.
We live in a World where everyone else has to pick up the pieces and roll with the consequences of taking away a good slap around the earhole :D

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No, the government will be doing that by preventing them from accessing anything except Pepper Pig & Bluey (after they have provided a certified copy their birth certificate).

What irritates me on the news is everything is now tagged with "Distressing Content" when there is nothing remotely "distressing" about any of it.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yep, I think at one time it was 'viewers discretion' or some such wording, maybe they could do the same on Twitch (and other places) so I could watch if I wanted to, or hide behind the sofa if I thought it was scary

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Some people may find it distressing though. If they've been through or witnessed similar events.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

But how will they know if it will be or not? Unless they go into detail to describe why it might be distressing - which in itself reading that, might be distressing to people who have witnessed similar events.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Hypothetically, a news crew film the aftermath of a massacre, a story that needs to be told, it’s in a news bulletin, the announcer reports that we have video of the scene of a mass killing - please be warned that some viewers might find the following section disturbing!

Now the vast, vast majority of people will, correctly, realise that what is likely to be shown are dead bodies, possibly children, the more ‘graphic images won’t be shown - but still! And then they can make a choice, watch it or not!

However a minority of people won’t or can’t make that decision and see something that really upsets them.

The question is where do you draw the line? Do you censor everything, just in case one person is upset by what they see, is newsworthy and really important evidence of a massacre not shown and publicised because a few people might be distressed?

Ideally this wouldn’t be a problem, alas we don’t live in an ideal world. I’m sorry, really sorry for people who may occasionally be exposed to seeing something that they find triggering - but the greater good.....?

---------- Post added at 22:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

The idea of somehow policing kid’s online activity is gone, it’s nigh on impossible. Maybe in the past when there might be one ‘family computer’ in the living room; but now...?

I know I have said this before but I have two daughters (now 20 and 24 years old), wind back 15 years or so when my eldest was 10-11 and I got her an iPod Touch and hence access to the internet.

I did set up some kind of filtering, (K9), but working it IT, I understood perfectly how porous these filters are.

So what I said to her was, ‘this gives you access to the sum total of human knowledge; but also some bad stuff. If or when you stumble across something that worries you, anything you are not sure about, anything that you are not OK with; then you come to me or your Mum, you show us, and we will explain it all to you. Importantly, you will not be in any trouble, no punishments, you have done nothing wrong’.

I am concerned that people think you can provide a technological solution to what is actually a parenting issue!

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Unless they are as stupid as hell, its pretty clear what an article or video is about.
If they really are that dumb, the "warning" wont matter anyway, they'll just ignore it.

It really is as stupid as putting "Warning, may contain nuts" on a packet of nuts. :dozey:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

It's all those 'ambulance chasing' lawyers isn't it, you now have to warn everyone about everything, otherwise you end up locked up and bankrupt.

You know the sort of thing . .

"Have you trodden in a cow pat in the dark while rustling cattle? Call us now and compensation will be swift and satisfactory"

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

They probably do it to cover those with mental impairments/disabilities, such as people with dementia etc

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

No, they dont, Carth is probably closer.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Been announced today that social media companies will now have to robustly check that their minimum age policies are adhered to, that there will be protection from groomers, that there will be safer feeds and that there will be an end to product testing on children.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

keep clutching at that last straw :rofl:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You're not saying that this is a bad move, surely?

I think that it would have been better to ban U16 or U18's from social media, but this was rejected by Parliament. By doing this at least younger children will be protected, so it's a fair compromise.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Yes, great idea, it's much like when those in power stopped us having coal fires & wood burners, scrapped all the coal fired power stations, spent £billions on Solar Energy and Wind Turbines, car manufacturers developed much cleaner internal combustion engines, and now people are virtually being forced to buy electric cars and those silly warm air pump things.


Has the planet stopped warming up yet?

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Nope.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

it has here it's bloody cold

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Throw another lump of coal on the . . . oh wait, maybe it's gonna have to be an extra bar used on that 'oh so efficient' electric fire then.

;)

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

"Been announced today that social media companies will now have to robustly check that their minimum age policies are adhered to, that there will be protection from groomers, that there will be safer feeds and that there will be an end to product testing on children.”

But that is all incredibly vague, just what constitutes a robust check? There will be protection from groomers - how? There will be safer feeds - which means what? An end to product testing on children - again, what does that mean, is it even a thing?

It’s not a bad move in itself, it's just a completely ineffective move. It will achieve nothing. It all comes around to the problem of age verification - just how do you prove that an individual is an adult (for arguments sake)? Well you have to turn over all sorts of personal information to some third party (which may or may not have ties to senior government officials) and whose security may well be as leaky as a sieve. I can just imagine the fallout from when (when not if) one of these providers gets hacked and all of their data stolen and the hackers now have the information that say, one Richard.Coulter has a login for ‘Spanking-Nuns-Monthly.com’, or whatever!

You can see the actually problem here?

OK look, I’m sure the vast majority of posters on here, do share your concerns about the impact of social media on children. And there is one excellent way of addressing it - education, ideally by the parents but by schools as well.

Vague legislation, will do nothing, education will.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

More to the point here, how do you prove someone is 13, as opposed to 12. Request more personal information on kids now ? :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

Ensuring a young persons online safety by making them reveal their personal details to anyone that asks is definitely the right way to go . . . says nobody with more than 7 brain cells.

It's just the typical knee jerk reaction of the Government and its army of experts, not just in this case but many over the previous years.

Re: Online Safety Bill Etc
 

You make a good point, but the issue is not really making a young person reveal their details, it’s making you and I and everyone else over 18, hand over personal details to some third party (probably the cheapest contractor - cheapest for a reason) and trust that they have a degree of competence and won’t allow all of that personal information to be hacked - hint, they won’t.

Do expect that within a year this company will be subject to a ‘sophisticated attack’ - which generally means that some clown (probably in higher management - because the rules don’t apply to them) clicked on a link in an obvious phishing email and coughed up their credentials. And naturally because they are the Senior Vice-President of Marketing and toilet paper, they absolutely have to have full admin rights over the entire system.

Cynic? Me? Absolutely not!