Censor Watch

The BBFC writes:

The BBFC can reveal that 1 in 3 adult pornography users have been exposed to violent or abusive content online in the last three months. In a survey of 2,021 adults who had accessed pornography online, over half (58%) expressed concern about the levels of violence or abuse depicted.

The research provides the most up-to-date insight into the types of violent and abusive content pornography users are exposed to online in the UK. The concerning findings come just four months after the Government published the Independent Pornography Review . The Review, led by Baroness Bertin, recommends parity between how pornography is regulated online and offline.

Offline, the BBFC has had statutory responsibility for classifying pornographic material released on physical formats (such as VHS, DVD and Blu-ray) for 40 years under the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA). The BBFC supports adults right to choose their own entertainment so long as it is legal and non-harmful. The BBFC will not classify any content that is in breach of the criminal law nor any material that might cause harm -- for example by encouraging dangerous emulation or unhealthy fantasies relating to violence, sadism, abuse and non-consensual behaviour. It is a criminal offence under the VRA to distribute a pornographic video work that has not been classified by the BBFC. However, the BBFC has no statutory role online.

The research shows that, in the past three months, users had been exposed to online content depicting physical violence, non-consensual activity, incest, and adults role-playing as children. Such content may cause harm by promoting an interest in sexually abusive relationships or in activity (such as strangulation) that can lead to serious physical harm. As such, it would be refused classification by the BBFC and would therefore be illegal to supply or distribute offline (on DVD or Blu-Ray). Of those exposed to these types of content, users were most concerned (67%) by material depicting adults role-playing as children.

Users most often reported having seen depictions of physical violence (19%), such as strangulation, with 62% of all respondents thinking that depictions of physical violence are normalised in online pornography. 64% of those surveyed agreed that violent or abusive pornography is contributing to the normalisation of violent sexual behaviour in the real world.

Whilst the Online Safety Act requires providers of online services to remove illegal content -- such as child sexual abuse material or extreme pornography -- it does not address all material that would be refused a BBFC classification for distribution offline. This means that harmful depictions of non-consensual, violent, abusive and degrading activity remain available to UK users.

Despite variation in individual exposure and concern of the respondents, a large majority would back regulation, with 80% of adult users supporting new rules to prevent online platforms from publishing or distributing pornography that depicts violence or abuse and 88% indicating they are in favour of new regulation to verify that all individuals shown are consenting adults.

Today, the BBFC joins the first meeting of the Independent Pornography Review Taskforce. The Taskforce has been established by Baroness Bertin and will bring together politicians, campaigners, police, charities and organisations who are invested in making the online world a safer place. Todays meeting, chaired by Baroness Bertin and co-hosted by the BBFC, will take the form of a roundtable discussion to which other key figures have been invited to contribute.

During the roundtable, the BBFC will welcome the Government's recent pledge to criminalise pornography depicting strangulation. The BBFC remains fully committed to supporting the Government with the implementation of Baroness Bertins recommendations, to ensure parity between online and offline regulation, including by bringing our unparalleled expertise to take on a formal role auditing online pornography.

President of the British Board of Film Classification, Natasha Kaplinsky OBE said:

The BBFC has long been concerned about the increasingly violent and abusive pornography so easily accessible online. Our findings that 1 in 3 adult pornography users have been exposed to such content in the last three months is shocking, but sadly it is not surprising.

Parity on and offline is paramount and our research suggests that there is broad support among pornography users in the UK for aligning the regulation of online pornography with the standards already applied offline. Whats illegal to distribute offline, should be illegal to distribute online.

We stand ready to better protect audiences online by taking on the formal role of auditing online pornography as recommended in the Independent Pornography Review, which would be a natural extension of the role we have fulfilled offline for decades.

Baroness Bertin, Lead Reviewer of the Independent Pornography Review said:

This BBFC research shows a clear path for regulating online pornography. The industry has faced virtually no scrutiny, despite widespread concerns about violence, misogyny, and content involving unclear age of performers or consent.

The Governments recent announcement to ban pornographic content depicting strangulation and suffocation is a welcome and significant step. It shows ministers are beginning to listen to growing concern about the harms caused by violent online pornography. But any law change could be ineffective if there isn't a regulatory body that will proactively assess whether standards are being met, and the law is being enforced. The BBFC stepping up to audit content and expedite reports of non compliance is a vital move the Government should back.

A British Labour MP, Jessica Asato, has announced that she plans to ask Parliament to outlaw online adult content featuring the act of choking. Asato called choking content insidious and claimed that it has led to a huge increase in the practice in everyday relationships. Asato claimed in an interview with GB News that this is also leading to things like spitting, slapping -- all things that actually many women say they don't want, they don't consent to -- so technically, that's criminal.

Asato explained that, should she be successful in passing the proposed law, the British media censor Ofcom would be empowered to levy really big fines or initiate criminal proceedings against sites or platforms that make choking content available online.

Inevitably the moralist Asato doesn't consider her censorship proposal as censorship. Asked whether she opposes nonviolent consensual pornography, Asato responded:

I don't have any problem with that at all, and I'm certainly not here to be a moralist ...BUT... What I'm really concerned about is the damaging impact it has in the real lives of women and girls in relationships.

Earlier this year, a pornography review initiated under the conservative government of former U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak recommended banning any adult content deemed degrading, violent and misogynistic -- including material showing choking, eaggeratingly tagged as non-fatal strangulation.

A new set of censorship rules unilaterally issued by the Israel Defense Forces is raising alarms over media freedom and public transparency.

Brigadier-General Kobi Mandelblit, Israel's chief censor, has issued a mandate requiring prior approval for any reporting on where missiles or drones have struck, no matter the platform or location of publication.

According to the statement, any person who prints or publishes printed matter or a publication regarding the location of a strike or hit by enemy war materiel, including missiles of any kind and UAVs, in the media or online (including social media, blogs and chats, etc.) must now submit that material to the military censor for approval before it is released.

This directive applies to both domestic and international reporting, online and offline.

First Time Video is pay site specialising in first time in porn sets. there are two websites, ftvgirls.com and ftvmilfs.com.

First time video repsonded to the ofcom censorship by taking away an introductory page describing the website content. British users are now met with just a subscription option to join the website as a paying member.

See article from ofcom.org.uk

In June 2025 Ofcom announced an investigation of the website saying:

We have launched an investigation into whether First Time Videos LLC, which provides the pornographic services FTVGirls.com and FTVMilfs.com, has highly effective age assurance in place to protect children from pornography.

We will now gather and analyse evidence to determine whether any contraventions have occurred. If our assessment indicates compliance failures, we will issue provisional notices of contravention to providers, who can then make representations on our findings, before we make our final decisions.

We will provide updates on these investigations as soon as possible.

Carry On Teacher is a 1959 UK comedy by Gerald Thomas
Starring Kenneth Williams, Leslie Phillips and Kenneth Connor

BBFC cuts were required for 'U' rated cinema release in 1959. The BBFC cuts have persisted into all releases since.

Summary Notes

Pupils run amok at Maudlin Street School in an attempt to hang on to their headmaster. He has applied for a new job, but the students like him and don't want to lose him.

Versions

uncut run: 86:15s pal: 82:48s		UK: Cut and BBFC U rated for mild sex references and comic violence: 2006 Optimum Releasing/Studiocanal DVD (rated 11/08/2006) at UK Amazon #ad UK: Cut and BBFC U rated for: 2001 Warner Home DVD (rated 12/09/2001) 1988 Warner Home VHS (rated 11/07/1988)
cut:   run: 89:00s pal: 85:26s		UK: A longer version was BBFC U rated for mild sex references and comic violence for mild sex references and comic violence after BBFC cuts: 1959 Beaconsfield Films cinema release (rated 20/05/1959) Thanks to Vince. The BBFC cuts list read: Reel 2 & 3 - Shorten the dialogue between the master and the pupil who objects to the use of the school edition of 'Romeo and Juliet', especially removing the phrase "by her fine foot, straight leg and thigh and the demesnes that there adjacent lie." From IMDb: The name 'Allcock' was questioned by the 1950s' censors, especially how much the characters constantly say it with such precision on the cock part, but they eventually allowed it to pass.

See article from en.wikipedia.org

4chan is an anonymous English-language imageboard website. The site hosts boards dedicated to a wide variety of topics, from video games and television to literature, cooking, weapons, music, history, technology, anime, physical fitness, politics, and sports, porn, among others. Registration is not available, except for staff, and users typically post anonymously. 4chan receives more than 22 million unique monthly visitors, of whom approximately half are from the United States.

The website achieved a little notoriety in Donald Trump's first presidential term. The wesbite was identified for providing a voice to 'alt-right' (right leaning) Trump supporters who were otherwise silenced by an alliance of liberal internet companies and mainstream media outlets..

In June 2025 Ofcom announced that it was looking into censoring 4chn. Ofcom wrote:

Ofcom has launched investigations into whether seven file-sharing services, 4chan and porn provider First Time Videos have failed to comply with their duties under the UK's Online Safety Act. Duties under the Act

The Online Safety Act has introduced new rules to ensure online services take action to protect their UK users, especially children.

Sites that publish their own pornography must already have highly effective age checks in place to stop children accessing this material. Search and user-to-user services -- where people can see content shared by others, including social media -- should have assessed the risk of their UK users encountering illegal content and activity on their platforms, and must now be taking appropriate steps to protect them from it.

As well as engaging with large platforms about their new duties, our dedicated taskforce has been attempting to engage with a number of smaller sites that may present particular risks to users. Today we have opened investigations into a number of these services.

Specifically, we are investigating whether the providers of these services have failed to:

put appropriate safety measures in place to protect UK users from illegal content and activity; complete -- and keep a record of -- a suitable and sufficient illegal harms risk assessment; and respond to a statutory information request.

4chan hasn't made a statement about Ofcom's censorship. The website is still generally available in the UKbut is partially self censored. Attempting to reach the site via the home page results in a 403 error message (meaning that the user is unauthorised). However jumping into any other page (eg https://boards.4chan.org/news/) works without error.

 

Offsite Comment: Allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website.

See article from reclaimthenet.org

Ofcom has set its sights on 4chan, a US-hosted imageboard owned by a Japanese national. The site operates under US law and has no physical infrastructure, employees, or legal registration in Britain. Nonetheless, UK regulators have declared it fair game.

Wherever in the world a service is based if it has 'links to the UK', it now has duties to protect UK users, Ofcom insists.

That phrase, links to the UK, is intentionally vague and extraordinarily expensive, allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website.

This kind of extraterritorial overreach marks a direct threat to the principle of national sovereignty in internet governance. The UK is attempting to dictate the rules of online speech to foreign companies, hosted on foreign servers, and serving users in other countries, all because someone in Britain might visit their site.

According to Ofcom, 4chan failed to respond to its statutory information requests, making it one of nine services now under formal investigation.

What this law actually does is push platforms, especially smaller or independent ones, out of the UK entirely.

Rather than making the internet safer, the law is creating a digital iron curtain around the UK, where only government-approved content and services remain accessible.

A paid-for ad on the Guardian news website for Diesel clothing, seen on 26 March 2025, featured an image of the model, Katie Price, wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest. Text underneath the image stated, Diesel Spring Summer 2025.

The ASA received 13 complaints.

1. Some complainants, who believed the ad objectified and sexualised women, challenged whether it was offensive, harmful and irresponsible.

2. Some complainants, who believed the model appeared to be unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible.

Diesel said the ad was part of a brand campaign called The Houseguests, which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry, by reflecting a wide range of body types. They regretted that this context was not clear to the complainants. They believed the ad was compliant with the CAP Code, but nevertheless they had removed the ad from the Guardian website. They said the ad had been published in over 100 countries worldwide and they had not been notified of any other complaints.

2. Diesel said although Ms Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight. They said, in the ad Ms Price's head was in proportion with her body, her collar bones were not overly pronounced and her limbs, although slender, were clearly covered with healthy muscle and were proportional to her size. They believed the image was not therefore irresponsible.

ASA Assessment 1. Upheld

The ASA acknowledged Diesel's comments regarding the wider advertising campaign, but considered the ad in isolation, as it was likely that at least some people seeing the ad would not have seen any of the other ads or videos that were part of the campaign.

The model featured in the ad was Katie Price, a well-known public figure. She was shown holding a Diesel handbag in front of her chest, prominently in the foreground of the image, and was wearing one of Diesel's bikinis. We understood that the products featured were part of Diesel's Spring Summer 2025 collection. She appeared to be standing in front of a portable sunbed, which would have been apparent to some people seeing the ad. However, the background of the image showed Ms Price was inside a house, rather than a location which would be more immediately associated with wearing a bikini, such as a beach or poolside.

The bikini only partially covered Ms Price's breasts and we considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers' attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body. While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her. We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.

ASA Assessment 2. Not upheld

We acknowledged that Ms Price was slim and considered whether the ad depicted her in such a way as to make her appear unhealthily thin.

We considered that her arms, whilst slender, did have some muscle tone and were in proportion to the rest of her body. Her hair had been styled away from her face in a beehive style, in such a way as to elongate her face and her head was slightly tilted downwards which added to that effect, but we did not consider she appeared gaunt. None of her bones were obviously protruding. There was a gap between her thighs but that appeared, at least in part, due to her pose with one leg stepped forward. Only the tops of her thighs were visible in the ad, and we considered they did not appear to be unduly slender and appeared to be in proportion to the rest of her body. We therefore considered that the ad did not depict Ms Price in such a way as to make her appear unhealthily thin and concluded that it was not irresponsible on that basis.

The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Diesel SpA t/a Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.

A Game in the Woods is a 2024 US horror by Mike McCutchen
Starring Eleanor Newman, Emily Skeen and John P. Crowley

The BBFC briefly reported dialogue cuts to this film but this was an erroneous database entry and the film is actually uncut and BBFC 18 rated. The video is uncut and MPA Unrated in the US.

Summary Notes

After a Texas rancher dies, his granddaughter and her girlfriend discover masked hunters at his ranch competing in a twisted game of life and death. Will the beauties and their already rocky romance survive the brutal carnage?

Versions

uncut run: 80:14s pal: 77:01s

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for: 2025 Jinga Films Ltd R1 DVD at US Amazon #ad UK: BBFC 18 rated for strong gory violence, brief sexual violence for strong gory violence, brief sexual violence after BBFC cuts: 2025 Jinga Films VoD (rated 09/06/2025)

Google and Apple will soon be required to verify app store users ID/ages in Texas, after Governor Greg Abbott signed the rule into law on Tuesday.

The Texas App Store Accountability Act follows similar legislation that passed in Utah earlier this year, although it requires the app stores to collect even more user data. Enforcement of the Texas law is set to begin at the start of next year -- giving app stores several months to determine how they will collect this information. The bill was passed with super-majority approval by the Texas House and Senate.

An Apple spokesperson responded in a statement:

We believe there are better proposals that help keep kids safe without requiring millions of people to turn over their personal information.

Apple CEO Tim Cook called Abbott earlier this month to encourage him not to sign the bill as written.

Like Utah's law, the Texas bill requires app stores to verify all users ages and obtain parental consent before minor users download or make a purchase through an app. Theyre also required to share age categories -- child, young teenager, older teenager or adult -- with app developers so that, at least in theory, they can provider safer experiences for young users.

But Texas law adds an additional requirement: The app stores must also confirm that the parent or guardian approving a minors app downloads has the legal authority to make decisions for that child.

App store operators Google and Apple argue that the age verification bills will undermine individual privacy. That's because every user, not just children, will have to provide sensitive data -- likely an ID or a scan of their face -- to confirm their age, even if they only want to download something like a weather app, where age is irrelevant. And the custody rule will require parents to turn over even more personal documentation.

Malaysia's Online Safety Bill 2024 was passed by the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) and the Dewan Negara (Senate) on 11 and 16 December 2024 respectively. The Bill will now be presented for Royal Assent and become law upon it being gazetted and will come into operation on a date to be appointed by the Minister of Communications.

The Bill aims to: enhance and promote online safety in Malaysia; reduce harmful content available online and mitigate its potential detrimental effects; and impose duties and obligations on online service providers.

Scope of Application

The Bill will apply to licensed Network Service Providers (NSPs), Application Service Providers (ASPs), and Content Application Service Providers (CASPs). However, it will not extend to private messaging features of any application service or content application service, defined as a feature that allows a user to communicate a content to a specific and limited number of recipients determined by the user and may contain any other characteristics as may be prescribed .

Extraterritorial Application:

The Bill will have extraterritorial effect, applying to the above service providers outside Malaysia that offer application services, content application services, or network services within Malaysia. These provisions fall under the authority of the Minister and will be enforced by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC).

Harmful Content and Priority Harmful Content

Harmful content , as defined in the Bill, includes the following specific types of content:

• (i) content on child sexual abuse material as provided for under section 4 of the Sexual Offences against Children Act 2017 [Act 792];
• (ii) content on financial fraud;
• (iii) obscene content including content that may give rise to a feeling of disgust due to lewd portrayal which may offend a persons manner on decency and modesty;
• (iv) indecent content including content which is profane in nature, improper and against generally accepted behaviour or culture;
• (v) content that may cause harassment, distress, fear or alarm by way of threatening, abusive or insulting words or communication or act;
• (vi) content that may incite violence or terrorism;
• (vii) content that may induce a child to cause harm to himself;
• (viii) content that may promote feelings of ill-will or hostility amongst the public at large or may disturb public tranquillity; and
• (xi) content that promotes the use or sale of dangerous drugs.

Priority harmful content is defined as the first two types of harmful content listed above, namely (i) content involving child sexual abuse material, and (ii) content related to financial fraud.

Duties of ASPs and CASPs

The Bill introduces comprehensive obligations for ASPs and CASPs ( Service Providers ) to enhance online safety and mitigate risks associated with harmful content. These duties aim to create a safer online environment for all users, with particular emphasis on protecting vulnerable groups like children and addressing priority harmful content more stringently. Key requirements include:

• (a) Mitigating Exposure to Harmful Content: Service Providers must implement measures to reduce the risk of users encountering harmful content, either as outlined in the Code of Conduct (Best Practice) for Internet Messaging and Social Media Service Providers issued by the MCMC or through alternative, proven-effective measures.
• (b) User Guidelines: Service Providers are required to provide users with clear guidelines on implemented safety measures and terms of use of their services.
• (c) Online Safety Tools: Service Providers must offer tools and settings that allow users to manage their online safety, such as limiting or preventing interactions with others who may identify, locate, or communicate with them.
• (d) Reporting Mechanisms: Mechanisms must be in place for users to report harmful content and to seek responsive assistance for online safety concerns or inquiries about safety measures.
• (e) Blocking Priority Harmful Content: Service Providers are obligated to establish systems that make priority harmful content inaccessible on their platforms.
• (f) Child Safety Measures: Specific protections for children must be implemented, including preventing access to harmful content, limiting communication with adults, controlling personalised recommendations, reducing features that encourage prolonged use, and safeguarding personal information.
• (g) Online Safety Plan: Service Providers must develop, submit to the MCMC, and publicly share an Online Safety Plan detailing compliance with these obligations.

MCMC is empowered to impose a financial penalty of up to RM10 million (£1,750,000) on Service Providers that fail to comply with any of the aforementioned duties.

Starting July 1st, the classic and iconoclastic comedy series South Park may finally have one streaming home following years of a divided catalog and many millions of dollars in legal fees. Paramount appears ready to consolidate the catalog of their most prized comedy property on Paramount+, starting 1st July

However entertainment critic ArtieReviews reported that American subscribers will find that a dozen additional episodes have been added to the infamous South Park ban list.

Even with all the corporate acrimony between South Park's two streaming homes over the last five years, fans with deep pockets have still been able to stream almost every episode of South Park so long as they had subscriptions to both Max and Paramount+. The only banned South Park episodes that are currently unavailable to stream through any legal means are Super Best Friends, Cartoon Wars Parts I and II, 200 and 201 , all of which featured depictions of the religious character Mohammed.

While ArtieReviews' ban list is yet-unconfirmed by Paramount itself, all of the episodes he listed are entries in the South Park catalog that are unavailable to stream on Paramount+ in non-U.S. markets where the company has retained full streaming control. Once Paramount Global regains a complete South Park streaming catalog, ArtieReviews believes that they will institute their international ban list.

The likely list of banned titles is:

• Season 1 Episode 4: Big Gay Al's Big Boat Ride
• Season 2 Episode 1: Terrance And Phillip In Not Without My Anus
• Season 4 Episode 14: Pip/Great Expectations
• Season 5 Episode 3: Super Best Friends
• Season 6 Episode 2: Jared Has Aides
• Season 6 Episode 7: Simpsons Did It
• Season 7 Episode 1: Cancelled
• Season 8 Episode 3: Passion Of The Jew
• Season 8 Episode 4: You Got F'd In The A
• Season 9 Episode 8: Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow
• Season 9 Episode 12: Trapped In The Closet
• Season 10 Episode 3/4 Cartoon Wars 1/2
• Season 14 Episode 5/6 200/201
• Season 16 Episode 4 Jewpacabra
• Season 17 Episode 6 Ginger Cow

Motherless.com is a well known porn tube site that seems to feature a more diverse selection of videos than most with a little more user/amateur content, than is the norm. The website is still operating and continues to allow open access.

Ofcom writes of its actions:

Ofcom has launched two investigations into whether Kick Online Entertainment S.A has failed to comply with its duties under the UK's Online Safety Act. Duties under the Act

Providers of services in scope of the Act are required to assess the risk of people in the UK encountering illegal content on their service, and take appropriate steps to protect them from it.

Providers are also required to respond to all statutory information requests from Ofcom in an accurate, complete and timely way.

On 3 March 2025, we opened an enforcement programme to monitor whether providers are complying with their duties under the Act to carry out an illegal content risk assessment and keep appropriate records of their assessments. As part of this programme, we issued an information request to Kick Online Entertainment S.A, which is responsible for providing the pornography website Motherless.com. We required it to submit the record of its illegal content risk assessment to us so we could consider whether it is compliant with its duties.

Having received no response to our request, we have today launched investigations into whether this provider has failed in its duties to complete and keep a record of  a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment and respond to a statutory information request.

We have received complaints about the potential for illegal content and activity on this site, including child sexual abuse material and extreme pornography. In light of this, we will also be considering whether the provider has put appropriate safety measures in place to protect its UK users from illegal content and activity and may launch an additional investigation into its compliance with this duty if appropriate

We will now gather and analyse evidence to determine whether a contravention has occurred. If our assessment indicates a compliance failure, we will issue a provisional notice of contravention to the provider, who can then make representations on our findings, before we make our final decision.

We will provide regular updates as these investigations progress.

Encrypted chat apps like Signal and WhatsApp are one of the best ways to keep your digital conversations as private as possible. But if you're not careful with how those conversations are backed up, you can accidentally undermine your privacy.

When a conversation is properly encrypted end-to-end, it means that the contents of those messages are only viewable by the sender and the recipient. The organization that runs the messaging platform--such as Meta or Signal--does not have access to the contents of the messages. But it does have access to some metadata , like the who, where, and when of a message. Companies have different retention policies around whether they hold onto that information after the message is sent.

What happens after the messages are sent and received is entirely up to the sender and receiver. If youre having a conversation with someone, you may choose to screenshot that conversation and save that screenshot to your computers desktop or phones camera roll. You might choose to back up your chat history, either to your personal computer or maybe even to cloud storage (services like Google Drive or iCloud, or to servers run by the application developer).

Those backups do not necessarily have the same type of encryption protections as the chats themselves, and may make those conversations--which were sent with strong, privacy-protecting end-to-end encryption--available to read by whoever runs the cloud storage platform youre backing up to, which also means they could hand them at the request of law enforcement.

With that in mind, lets take a look at how several of the most popular chat apps handle backups, and what options you may have to strengthen the security of those backups.

How Signal Handles Backups

The official Signal app doesnt offer any way to back up your messages to a cloud server (some alternate versions of the app may provide this, but we recommend you avoid those, as there dont exist any alternatives with the same level of security as the official app). Even if you use a device backup, like Apples iCloud backup, the contents of Signal messages are not included in those .

Instead, Signal supports a manual backup and restore option. Basically, messages are not backed up to any cloud storage, and Signal cannot access them, so the only way to transfer messages from one device to another is manually through a process that Signal details here . If you lose your phone or it breaks, you will likely not be able to transfer your messages.

How WhatsApp Handles Backups

WhatsApp can optionally back up the contents of chats to either a Google Account on Android, or iCloud on iPhone, and you have a choice to back up with or without end-to-end encryption. Here are directions for enabling end-to-end encryption in those backups. When you do so, youll need to create a password or save a 64-digit key.

How Apples iMessages Handles Backups

Communication between people with Apple devices using Apples iMessage (blue bubbles in the Messages app), are end-to-end encrypted, but the backups of those conversations are not end-to-end encrypted by default. This is a loophole we've routinely demanded Apple close.

The good news is that with the release of the Advanced Data Protection feature , you can optionally turn on end-to-end encryption for almost everything stored in iCloud, including those backups (unless youre in the U.K., where Apple is currently arguing with the government over demands to access data in the cloud, and has pulled the feature for U.K. users).

How Google Messages Handles Backups

Similar to Apple iMessages, Google Messages conversations are end-to-end encrypted only with other Google Messages users (youll know its enabled when theres a small lock icon next to the send button in a chat).

You can optionally back up Google Messages to a Google Account, and as long as you have a passcode or lock screen password, the backup of the text of those conversations is end-to-end encrypted. A feature to turn on end-to-end encrypted backups directly in the Google Messages app, similar to how WhatsApp handles it, was spotted in beta last year but hasnt been officially announced or released.

Everyone in the Group Chat Needs to Get Encrypted

Note that even if you take the extra step to turn on end-to-end encryption, everyone else you converse with would have to do the same to protect their own backups. If you have particularly sensitive conversations on apps like WhatsApp or Apple Messages, where those encrypted backups are an option but not the default, you may want to ask those participants to either not back up their chats at all, or turn on end-to-end encrypted backups. Ask Yourself: Do I Need Backups Of These Conversations?

Of course, theres a reason people want to back up their conversations. Maybe you want to keep a record of the first time you messaged your partner, or want to be able to look back on chats with friends and family. There should not be a privacy trade-off for those who want to save those conversations, but unfortunately you do need to weigh whether or not its worth saving your chats with the potential of them being exposed in your security plan .

But also its worth considering that we dont typically need every conversation we have stored forever. Many chat apps, including WhatsApp and Signal , offer some form of disappearing messages, which is a way to delete messages after a certain amount of time. This gets a little tricky with backups in WhatsApp. If you create a backup before a message disappears, itll be included in the backup, but deleted when you restore later. Those messages will remain there until you back up again, which may be the next day, or may not be many days, if you dont connect to Wi-Fi.

You can change these disappearing messaging settings on a per-conversation basis. That means you can choose to set the meme-friendly group chat with your friends to delete after a week, but retain the messages with your kids forever. Google Messages and Apple Messages dont offer any such feature--but they should, because its a simple way to protect our conversations that gives more control over to the people using the app.

End-to-end encrypted chat apps are a wonderful tool for communicating safely and privately, but backups are always going to be a contentious part of how they work. Signals approach of not offering cloud storage for backups at all is useful for those who need that level of privacy, but is not going to work for everyones needs. Better defaults and end-to-end encrypted backups as the only option when cloud storage is offered would be a step forward, and a much easier solution than going through and asking every one of your contacts how or if they back up their chats.

Angel Guts: Red Classroom is a 1979 Japan horror thriller by Chûsei Sone
Starring Yûki Mizuhara, Keizô Kanie and Jun Aki

Distributors submitted this film to the BBFC in 2002 but the BBFC required unacceptable cuts and the distributors abandoned the UK release. The BBFC was finally passed 18 uncut for Blu-ray in 2025. Uncut and MPAA Unrated in the US.

Summary Notes

When a writer for a porn magazine, watches a "rape" porn that is set in a school, he becomes obsessed with the lead actress, Nami, and tries to find her. He meets her by chance as he arrives for a shoot at a hotel.

Versions

uncut run: 78:35s pal: 75:26s		UK: Uncut and BBFC 18 rated for sexual violence, strong sex, nudity: 2025 Third Window Films Blu-ray (rated 06/05/2025) titled Angel Guts - Red Classroom US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for: 2006 Arts Magic R1 DVD at US Amazon #ad
unreleased cut: run: 77:18s pal: 74:12s		UK: BBFC 18 rated for sexual violence, strong sex, nudity for sexual violence, strong sex, nudity after BBFC cuts: 2002 Artsmagic DVD (rated 16/09/2002) The BBFC commented: Compulsory cuts required to remove eroticising sight of forced exposure and groping of breasts and to remove eroticising detail from subsequent rape scene. Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and BBFC Policy on sexual violence. The video remained  unreleased after the BBFC required unacceptable cuts. Distributors ArtsMagic collected all five uncut versions of Nikkatsu's officially produced "Angel Guts" films from 1978-1988. Having had difficulties submitting Red Classroom and Red Dizziness to the BBFC back in 2002 they decided to abandon plans for the UK market full stop, because they knew they wouldn't be able to release the best versions that they could.