Shame on you T-mobile, sending smut to kiddies

[W1nTry]

This is a weird 1, I mean I am sure they could have expected this would happen esp with the size of their network and totality of their demograph:

T-mobile denies glam girls represent adult content

T-Mobile's official response

By Tony Dennis: Thursday 19 January 2006, 16:11
CURIOUSER & CURIOUSER. The official verdict from T-Mobile as to why a minor – an eight year old girl – was able to receive messages from a service called Hot Babes is quite simple. T-Mobile just doesn't class the content as adult.

See T-Mobile sends smut to eight year old girl. The fact that the multimedia messages showed topless women doesn't apparently count. Which the INQ finds somewhat astounding since – as a family orientated site – we wouldn't normally print pictures anything like as risqué as these.

By an amazing co-incidence, one of the women in question bears a remarkable resemblance to super-model Heidi Klum. Celebrities aren't our normally field of excellence. But it just so happens that Heidi was one of two models at the recent BMW Sauber F1 launch which we attended courtesy of Intel.

The other model was Alessandra Ambrosio, who is apparently Brazilian.

But we digress. Our irate young mother now has to complain formally to T-Mobile about the content in question. If she doesn't get a satisfactory response, she can then complain to the IMCB - the Independent Mobile Classification Body responsible for setting a Classification Framework.

In other words, you can appeal to the IMCB if you think that your network operator/content provider is supplying material of an adult nature to non-adults.

The IMCB can be found here. Other key words that can be sent to 3060 which will punch a hole straight through T-Mobile's Content Lock provision include – Girl, Tackle, Hunk and Erotic. Somehow we don't think that Dilbert falls into the same class.

Oh, and Hot Babes is free for the first 30 days after which each message costs 30 pence. Censored versions of the pix are below. µ

[disciple]

study eyebrows are no longer raised at the fact that an 8 year old has a celly...   
lol. i remember when havin a pager was the real flick...


anyhow, i doh see how t-mobile can be blamed for this....   unless they sent it, unrequested..   i wondering if the child was playin up on the phone and request it herself, by accident

being an 8 year old,  the child cannot enter into any legal contract with anyone; therefore the parent ( if it was a postpaid celly) would have signed, and under the assumption that these subscriber is an adult, if the subscriber requests it, it can be given...   if yuh wanna give yuh child a fone, it is up to the parent to monitor the cellphone.. cuz i mean.. if some anonymous pervert decided to befriend the child, and callin the child regular.. who they gonna blame? t-mobile? nope.. they are the ones who give the child a cell phone...


even if it were a pre-paid phone, and no contract it signed, there are still terms and conditions that go along with the usage.. and to fully expect a child to understand all that is ludicrous.. all goes back to the parents...

i hope these parents not kickin a fuss just to sue ( a la the US system of 'justice').. if they just want to change the classification of the service to 'adult', is no scene..


in any event.. topless chicks doh qualify as smut in the UK, i think..    normal newspapers have 'page 3 girls', topless, like our  sunday punch down here..

is when they show furs and hardcore, then it decends into smut..lol..
besides... who they gonna sue when the girl gets older and grows breasts of her own? god forbid she has to see those..LOL

[ZUSE]

agreed 

[Gambitt]

It's clearly not the phone company's fault. If the kids wanted it they would have gotten it in some other way. The parents need to stop passing the buck and the blame on to others for the way they are bringing up their kids.

http://www.localnewsleader.com/elytimes/stories/news-00111696.html

[disciple]

gambitt. i read tha article you linked.. and i surprised people still 'unsmart' enough to NOT take photos of themselves in slackness, on they phones..lol..  or at least get it off real quick..

thas like a recipe for disaster.... and in her case, that photo go live on in the school for years to come, i sure

sorry for her though.. teachin hard enough as it is, now everybody loss respect for her, she loss confidence in herself and feelin real shame too, i sure..

[Gambitt]

I dunno. That might be the one thing to make the little bastards behave, they trying to look good for teacher. Maybe she might pass a little action their way. 

Sides, I dunno what "state of undress" she was in, since nobody ent send me that picture yet. (Tstt sticking with that whole picture messaging system). For all I know she was wearing a bikini, or just had on her man shirt with no pants. Or maybe she was buck naked except for the pasties and the two birthday candles and she had a chicken in one hand and an iguana in the next. Thing is we dont know how much slackness she was involved in.

Nudity alone does not constitute smut, IMHO. If it does then you'd have to cover this guy up, and  this one is just plain horrible isnt it.

[disciple]

lol
highly unlikely she go throw somethin on them.. 


just a face and tit shot ( it on google, just look for "limassol nude teacher")

still is a gross violation of privacy, but yuh look for that if yuh leave that sort of stuff on your phone, and/or leave it unattended in a classroom full of schoolkids...