Revenge Porn Is Becoming a Criminal Offense in U.K.

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
For a start you cannot post a picture of someone online without there consent, also the photographer although owning the photograph does not have the right to use that photograph in any publication online or other.
I think you mean for COMMERCIAL purposes. Certainly if I take a high resolution picture of the Eiffel Tower or a crowded restaurant at my birthday dinner, I don't have to spend the next three days either blurring out faces or tracking down each person to get permission to post it online to Facebook or Flickr or whatever.
 

wabbitseason

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,511
More faggotry from England.

Is posting revenge porn an absolute dick move worthy of social shaming and contempt? Unquestionably. Do we need yet more laws expanding the grossly-distorted modern definition of "victimhood"? Absolutely not.
 

mashie

Mawd Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2000
Messages
4,261
Good, I'm glad I live in the UK.

I feel sorry for all you guys that have to use the revenge porn sites for your daily jerkoff.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,140
Don't worry, there are US states trying to ban jogapants and the sight of cameltoes is offensive.

Or over 50% of USA states have revenge porn laws. ...

Ban yoga pants? Now that is bad!

The law for revenge porn will be a hard one to prove? Like others have said what if it wasn't the ex who posted them but somebody else. Maybe just the poster gets in trouble.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Good, I'm glad I live in the UK.

I feel sorry for all you guys that have to use the revenge porn sites for your daily jerkoff.

I doubt many if any of us visit or even really care about revenge porn sites, there are far better places to get fap material. Some of us are against laws like this on the principle of the precedent that they set. Sorry but I am completely opposed to nanny state laws that serve no purpose other then to protect people from their own stupidity. Calling people who get their nudes posted victims is disingenuous and takes away from people who actually are victims of something. So while people who post this kind of crap are indeed dirtbags, the ones posted are NOT victims. You don't get to claim victim status when you took a nude photo of yourself and shared it on an internet connected device. Just because people aren't smart enough to practice common sense, doesn't mean we need a law protecting them. Honestly this is just more SJW garbage pandering asking for people to be treated like children. It's the "everyone is a victim" mentality and frankly I'm sick of it. It's time for people to Grow the Fuck up and start taking personal responsibility and stop expecting the law to protect them no matter what.
 

Pantalaimon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
195
when you took a nude photo of yourself and shared it on an internet connected device
I thought this has to do more with when an ex post a nude photo taken when both parties were both still married or dating.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
I thought this has to do more with when an ex post a nude photo taken when both parties were both still married or dating.

It does in most cases, but it still requires the technical act of what I described. The person in question either takes a selfie or consents to the taking of a nude picture, almost always with a cellphone (which is an internet connected device). So yes, they are in fact responsible for being irresponsible.

Also want to know what the litmus test for verifying this is nothing more then another SJW bullshit agenda? Go pay a visit to one of those sites and tell me if there aren't plenty of revenge guy nudes on there. Yet strangely enough, only the women seem to be the ones being victimized...yea..no double standard there at all. Which is why I stick to the distilled fact of, None of them are victims as they Chose to make an irresponsible decision of sharing a nude photo on the internet. As such this is a nanny law that has Zero business being enacted.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
It does in most cases, but it still requires the technical act of what I described. The person in question either takes a selfie or consents to the taking of a nude picture, almost always with a cellphone (which is an internet connected device). So yes, they are in fact responsible for being irresponsible.

It's not that hard to take a compromising picture of someone you sleep with without their knowledge.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
If someone is posting this stuff for revenge or extortion how is the subject in the material not a victim?

If I go walking alone in the bad part of town with wads of cash hanging out of my pockets and wearing a ton of jewelry and get robbed. I'm not a victim, I knowingly made a poor decision. As described in my previous post, you share a nude, you are knowingly making a poor decision. Knowingly making poor decisions doesn't make you a victim, that makes you a moron. Some of you apparently need to learn what really being victimized is.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
It's not that hard to take a compromising picture of someone you sleep with without their knowledge.

Those are extremely rare cases and those are the actual victims, that however is an entirely different thing. However the fact is, the gross majority of revenge port was taken with consent at one point and it is impossible to filter it.
 

Pantalaimon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
195
It does in most cases, but it still requires the technical act of what I described.
While these kinds of photos are now often taken using cell phones, what about when they are not taken using a cell phone but using an actual camera which is not connected online?
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
While these kinds of photos are now often taken using cell phones, what about when they are not taken using a cell phone but using an actual camera which is not connected online?

Find actual examples of that and we can debate that, however we both know that's reaching as extremely few if any of the photo's in question were taken with a non connected device.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
If I go walking alone in the bad part of town with wads of cash hanging out of my pockets and wearing a ton of jewelry and get robbed. I'm not a victim, I knowingly made a poor decision. As described in my previous post, you share a nude, you are knowingly making a poor decision. Knowingly making poor decisions doesn't make you a victim, that makes you a moron. Some of you apparently need to learn what really being victimized is.

You're basically saying that if a crime is easy to commit then there is no crime. Sure poor decisions can make it easier for someone to be a subject of a crime, nonetheless the law doesn't typically make any distinction on how easy it was for a crime to be committed. The act is still criminal and subjects of those acts are still victims.

Those are extremely rare cases and those are the actual victims, that however is an entirely different thing. However the fact is, the gross majority of revenge port was taken with consent at one point and it is impossible to filter it.

When two people are together long enough they typically know a lot about the other person. And in this day and age they tend develop a digital footprint of images, videos, financial documents, etc. I know my wife's social security number, she's willing given it to me. Does that mean I can then go and distribute it on the web?

What you and others seem to be ignoring is intent. Intent is a key element in many criminal proceedings and is often the different between a crime and not. Leaking information for the purpose of causing harm to another party is that the issue is here. Not how the information was obtained. Sure there are caveats. Did the person give permission to release the data? Was the data actually not released maliciously and compromised by hacking, etc.
 

Pantalaimon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
195
Find actual examples of that and we can debate that, however we both know that's reaching as extremely few if any of the photo's in question were taken with a non connected device.
There are other instances where the victim did not take the photo themselves. The photo or video could have been taken on the cell phone of the ex. For some reason you seem to focus only on the case where the victim took a selfie on a connected device

Anyway, whether a person should have no expectation of privacy when he or she takes a selfie on a connected device is a subject for the court to decide.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
You're basically saying that if a crime is easy to commit then there is no crime. Sure poor decisions can make it easier for someone to be a subject of a crime, nonetheless the law doesn't typically make any distinction on how easy it was for a crime to be committed. The act is still criminal and subjects of those acts are still victims.

That isn't all what I'm saying. The only point to my example was to point out if the person was an actual Victim or not. As to if it is a crime or not is irrelevant. The point being is that even if you are subject to a crime, that doesn't make you a victim if you knowingly put yourself into a stupid situation.


When two people are together long enough they typically know a lot about the other person. And in this day and age they tend develop a digital footprint of images, videos, financial documents, etc. I know my wife's social security number, she's willing given it to me. Does that mean I can then go and distribute it on the web?

What you and others seem to be ignoring is intent. Intent is a key element in many criminal proceedings and is often the different between a crime and not. Leaking information for the purpose of causing harm to another party is that the issue is here. Not how the information was obtained. Sure there are caveats. Did the person give permission to release the data? Was the data actually not released maliciously and compromised by hacking, etc.

I've been with my wife 16 years..take a wild guess what neither of us have ever done..go on, I'll wait.

Why? because both of us are fairly intelligent individuals and understand the insecure, non private nature of the web. We don't knowingly put ourselves into a situation where personal private info would easily go out. As to your example, sure you could do it and she wouldn't be a victim. It would of course make you a dirtbag for doing so and as to the legality that is another debate.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Anyway, whether a person should have no expectation of privacy when he or she takes a selfie on a connected device is a subject for the court to decide.

Seems like a very strange argument coming from this place. So if a person takes a selfie on a phone there's no expectation of privacy because it's a connected device. What about all of the other personal data that a person may have a connected device, phone, laptop of PC? As soon as someone puts that data on a connected device there's no longer any expectation of privacy and anyone with access to this data can freely distribute it? Even when the point is to cause harm to the subject of the data?
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
That isn't all what I'm saying. The only point to my example was to point out if the person was an actual Victim or not. As to if it is a crime or not is irrelevant. The point being is that even if you are subject to a crime, that doesn't make you a victim if you knowingly put yourself into a stupid situation.

If someone stole something from you you're the victim of theft. The law doesn't typically say it's not a crime or that you're not a victim because of poor decision making. Otherwise a lot of fraud wouldn't be criminal.


I've been with my wife 16 years..take a wild guess what neither of us have ever done..go on, I'll wait.

Why? because both of us are fairly intelligent individuals and understand the insecure, non private nature of the web. We don't knowingly put ourselves into a situation where personal private info would easily go out. As to your example, sure you could do it and she wouldn't be a victim. It would of course make you a dirtbag for doing so and as to the legality that is another debate.

If you've been married for 16 years you both have access to information on each other that if leaked could be embarrassing or otherwise cause harm. How in the world does someone with the intent of causing embarrassment or harm to another do that act and not create a victim?
 

[Tripod]MajorPayne

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
4,945
If someone stole something from you you're the victim of theft. The law doesn't typically say it's not a crime or that you're not a victim because of poor decision making. Otherwise a lot of fraud wouldn't be criminal.




If you've been married for 16 years you both have access to information on each other that if leaked could be embarrassing or otherwise cause harm. How in the world does someone with the intent of causing embarrassment or harm to another do that act and not create a victim?

I completely agree with your sentiment - people whose photos are posted publicly (or online) by a former trusted partner are absolutely victims. The people who post photos of their exes that were intended for private use only are committing a criminal act, in my opinion.

However, I'm not sure we need new laws addressing the specific issue of unauthorized photo posting; several court rulings have used existing statutes to go after people who post the photos and people who run the sites.
 
Top