Extreme porn law goes live - are you ready?

Unless you happen to have been living on Mars for the last year or so, you probably know that this week (January 26 to be precise) it will become a criminal offence (in England and Wales) to possess pictures that the government deems to be "extreme porn". You might also be aware of two diametrically opposed views on this …

[sammi]

This is bloody awesome

Though I must say that there are encryption programs out there with 'plausable deniability' options; somebody very close to me uses a program, called 'Crypto Key', I think, that has an option to totally hide a partition within a partition, with two keys.

Upon torture, you can give one key, which will unlock all but the hidden partition, leaving the hidden part resembling nothing but useless data.

And for yourself, there's the second key, that unlocks all of it ;)

There is always IronKey, or its eqiuvalent, with the 'self destruct' option if somebody attempts to hack the USB Key

[Anonymous Coward]

Change of habit?

Surely it will mean that browsing with a Live CD and no permanant storage would become the norm? Beneficial whether potentially illegal to own or not, if you don't want the kids to find it.

Alternatively sites may offer flash based viewers that store nothing and encrypt the stream.

If the sites are legal in their location and some of the content is legal in the UK, how is anything to be proved?

[Sid]

A Howto for the seedy

This is all very good advice, but wouldn't it be better just not to down load sick images from malware infested porn sites in the first place?

Or perhaps get a girlfriend ~ or a life?

Do people really get their kicks from a bunch of pixels?

wierdo's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite ironic really

The big censorship law goes live on Chinese new year.

[Phil]

RIPA again

On the subject of laws eventually being used for things other than those they were originally intended - the RIPA again - being used to find out whether a family was really in a school catchment area by a local council - and putting them under surveillance for two weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm

I think we can start to assume that laws such as these are used by those in authority to deal with behaviour that they find distasteful but that no-one would consider to be illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Back on planet earth...

What an amazing load of rubbish this is! I enjoyed the sentence beginning "Despite recent Which-inspired hysteria..." given that the entire article seems designed to whip up mass-hysteria for no reason what ever. The law, as its framed, is very clear that it seeks to ban people from downloading material depicting extreme sexual violence. The police should know this; the CPS and the courts certainly will. This article seeks to herald the arrival of a McCarthy-esque witch hunt against those who want nothing more than straight forward titillation and sexual gratification from run-of-the-mill pornography that is available all over the internet. Headline grabbing it might be. Fact, it certainly isn't. Shares in companies concerned with hard disk encryption and file deletion could well rocket on the back of this kind of nonsense, but back on planet earth, I guess that 70% of the adult male population of the UK is safe.

[Ken Hagan]

Proper backup procedures

Some excellent advice at the end on identifying the data you really care about and keeping a backup off-site. It would be nice if everyone did this. Had the government cast the net a little wider and brought, say, all images of children under its remit (unless you could prove parental consent) then everyone would now be backing up their family photos and videos. At least then, *some* good would come of this Dangerous Dogging Act.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone remember what freedom was like?

See, we don't actually own our property, it belongs to the government, as we are all tenants on their land. Anything we produce belongs to them. If our feudal masters command something, we must obey otherwise punishment awaits.

[Christoph]

So the trick is...

"but there are still lawyers - and exes - out there who might consider an allegation of looking at illegal porn a useful move as part of the separation end-game."

So the trick is to find some extreme images, store them on hubby's computer in an obscure sub-sub-sub folder that he'll never look at, then start divorce proceedings.

[Dave Bell]

How many computers?

If the Police have a warrant which allows them to take away every computer in a house, how many might that be?

I caught one of the Royal Institution Lectures on TV over Christmas, and the UK average is somewhere over 100 per house, including Chip-and-PIN cards.

So can sweeping demand for all your computer hardware ever be lawful, taking into account the HRA,, and will the Police have to be a bit more precise?

Just what will a court decide is, and is not, a computer? And if the Police gather so much evidence that they don't have the resources to check it in a timely manner, what then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every male MP has seen Bestiality Images

1. The decision to introduce the law was taken in response to newspaper headlines after a tradgedy.

2. The 'evidence' was created later.

3. The 'evidence' was wrong, written by women with a known viewpoint. i.e. the 'study' was made by people chosen to back the previous decision.

4. It is too broad.

5. The Justice dept say it will be only applied in a few cases. This makes it worse, it means that they accept the law is too broad and will use it selectively to punish at their discretion.

6. The 'grossly offensive' jury result is not true. Even if you do not get prosecuted, under the extended criminal background search this will be used against you.

7. THEY'RE JUST IMAGES. GET A GRIP YOU STUPID HARPIE!

8. I bet every male MP has seen bestiality images. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Why pretend that the male sexuality isn't driven by the sight of sex. Or that somehow we should be ashamed of this.

9. If you're saying that viewing those images turns people into rapists then why is there more rape in censored countries and non censoring countries? How many MPs are now rapists as a result.

IMHO, Jacqui Smith should be dismissed, if that is not possible, she should be unelected, when her sons break this law, I hope they are the first and the last to be prosecuted.

She makes laws to fix headlines not problems, she's not fit to hold her job, and if Brown cannot sack her it means he's not fit to hold his job.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for this handy list

Thanks for the advice. I do not reside in the UK, so hopefully I'll be safe for a little while longer, but then again I fully expect these same kind of laws will be adopted by my country in the not so distant future as well.

Thanks also for the TrueCrypt link, I'll keep a copy of it just in case I need to go abroad. It's a good idea to keep any information you don't want a government agent to see secreted away.

[Kenny Swan]

Worst. Law. Ever

How the hell is it fair for a jury or magistrate to determine what's offensive? Offensive to who? So, if the jury is full of over-sensitve morons, you can be convicted of owning images that are doing no one any harm? Offensiveness is subjective and can't be set in stone. If you're viewing these pictures on your own laptop and you don't show them to anyone, how can they be offensive if they're not offensive to person who owns them?

Britain is going to hell in a handbasket. Come on Scotland, don't allow this crap too.

Mine's the one with a ticket out of here in the pocket.

[Ray]

Be careful with Eraser

I had a play with this last year. It seems there are various forks around, at least one of which (the one I tried) will merrily delete everything

[jon]

W.o.T...

tldr

can I have the executive summary version please? :D or maybe some pagination?

[Anonymous Coward]

rodent with huge testicles

When I moved to UK in 1992 from the x-Soviet Russia, I had no idea that I am moving into the new soviet UK... Soviet is probably too gentle for this – thought police springs to mind.

In the good’ol USSR, the police would visit the flat of a suspected pornographer, invite the neighbours in (Soviet legal practice – “impartial” witnesses) and play them the tapes. – a video of a girl with bouncy breasts running on a beach will ensure screams “PORNOGRAPHY” from the pensioner neighbours, and would ensure the arrest of the “pornographer”

- Though I do not enjoy destruction of breasts and anuses in a sexual manner, I do have some pictures of weird sexual crap in my “funny pics” folder. – can I claim that I do not keep them for sexual gratification, or, will “they” instead try to prove that I get off on a picture of a rodent with huge testicles, and all the other funny stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

funny

So funny, this article being so thorough. It's almost as if El Reg *knows* its readers love the porn. Thanks for the advice, Reg.

So, what if I have the most vile, disgusting picture of a maiden being hung by her neck, spiked dildo ... (snipped for brevity) BUT she's smiling and winking at the camera?

My coat's the one showing Rorschachs under the UV...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was unaware that a precondition of Reg readership

was the possession of a few terabytes of bestial snuff

[Julian]

Risky

If there's a lawyer/council who will defend you, there's also one who will seek to crucify you, and that's before you are targeted by the police as a soft option.

It would be nice if these and similar measures really dealt with the real ills of society without actually creating such a morass of inconvenience and risk to your average Joe Bloggs.

The word of a politician, inter alia, is worth very little these days, which is a great problem in achieving a healthy society as a whole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously

What about:

"yes your "honour", this is my pc, yes this is my hard drive, and NO the pictures of <insert whatever type of porn material you like> are not mine.

When I say NOT mine, I had knowledge that 10,000 images existed in my C:\NORP DUMP, but, and this is important, I didn’t know what most of them were and this is why...

I used a download manager (Getright) that can take a webpage address like "www.bigones.com/big_boobs_gallery1.html" and see what files are linked to it. Then it picks out all the image files larger than 10Kb and downloads them to the aforementioned folder.

Rinse and repeat, and if you’re doing it on an industrial scale because there is fcuk all to do on a Sunday, you can set up a list of hundreds of website gallery addresses and leave your computer to macro its way through the list and produce a rather hefty down load list. Then it is "auto download" please... and a few hours later, you have a collection of "surprises" to look at.

Hence, I do not know what pictures the computer is downloading until I actually open the folder and look at all 10,000 files... but obviously I never get past the first few hundred and cannot remember where I left off!

There have been a few occasions where a few "OMG it’s got a pen15" pictures pop up! But I expect that is because the webmaster of the aforementioned website has not labelled the description of his link properly!! Or the picture hosting website has changed the images that the HTML page refers to! Or the government / police are conspiring against me because I’m a law abiding citizen who is sick to death of the erosion of common sense, privacy and civil liberties.

Hence in this case your "honour", I cannot be held liable as I didn’t have knowledge of what the majority of those 10,000 pictures were and would not have done unless you showed all 10,000 to the court while I was present.

So... I’ll be having your apologies now. Oh and my computer back.

[Anonymous Coward]

One way around

one way around springs to mind

do all your "dodgy" surfing from a live cd

if you are really paranoid do it from a machine with no hard drive

once the machine is rebooted there will be no trace on the machine and anything viewed is certainly beyond recovery

[Henry Cobb]

Rule of law dudes

Seriously, get a Constitution.

When I first read 1984, Brave New World and Animal Farm I always thought it was Eastern Europe that inspired them.

I should have known the writers wrote from personal experience.

-HJC

I am not a "Subject", I am a free man.

[Josh]

Thanks

...for keeping this story on your Radar, John. You've been one of the few writers online or off to keep this story in the public domain. I doubt most people in the wider population have any idea what the government are up to, but you and your colleagues at The Reg have maintained a close watch on these new laws (and others) and have always reported in a pretty impartial, but informative way. just wanted to record my thanks for your efforts - I know you come in for some criticism for dabbling in stories like this on The Reg, but I'm sure there are many who appreciate at least one rolling news site that has maintained a consistent interest on behalf of its readers. Long may it continue!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm prepared.

Truecrypt volume set up with plausible deniability, pron copied to it and original files overwritten.

Do your worst, you can never prove there are even other files there.

For people who have done nothing yet, basic truecrypt guide: http://pastebin.com/f4451edd4

[frymaster]

re: smash with a hammer

more to the point, there's probably _more_ recoverable information if you do that than if you do a simple disk wipe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's Go Fishing

The likelihood of not being caught is likely to dramatically decrease if the Interception Modernisation Progranmme gets up & running. I can't help but think that it'll be running a nationwide dragnet 24 hours a day.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I ready?

find / -iname '*clown*bsm*' -exec rm {} \;

Hopefully.

[Mathew White]

World of Warcraft

Is world of warcraft (allong with sadlife) going to fall foul of this? A taurine deathknight and a human making /kiss and /love emotes with each other!

Save our children from this ravaging by necrophilic bestiality!

[Martin Lyne]

IWF Approved

AKA

These materials are rated EC-10 for emotional content and are subject to immediate incineration.

Behold! The government unnecessarily stepping into our lives to save us form things we may want to do/re-legislating things that were already illegal.

USIdent anyone?

[Erik Norgaard]

How hard can it be?

Just how hard can it be to define extreme porn? Extreme porn is that which depicts sexual acts prohibited by law. That is, if you can't do it, you can't see it.

Of course, there is tons of stuff that you can't do that you nevertheless see in main stream films. It's the most trivial way of establishing a dramatic conflict, be it drugs or rape.

Then it must be a question of whether this was produced for the erotic pleasure or as part of a dramatic presentation of reality - that is ordinary films. Not whether the viewer watches for personal erotic pleasure, which is much more difficult to determine.

Anyway, where is the Paris Hilton clause in this law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Har

I just realised exactly why this law is so extremely silly. What's to stop people (especially the hardcore pervs they're aiming at) from keeping their "extreme porn" on a USB key or CD and only looking at it on a device without core storage, like a DVD player or Wii? USB keys are cheap, and could be easily concealed from even the most vigorous police search, especially microXD cards. If the cops are going to be looking at recovering deleted images from a hard disc, the only people likely to be convicted would be totally innocent. You'd have to be a raging idiot to think that the police won't try DAMN hard to convict you, even if you don't have the skills to recover that data yourself. Meanwhile, the ones actually breaking the law will go undetected.

[David Webb]

Obviously...

"But what if the worst happens? Plod has burst through your front door at two in the morning. All your PC equipment is now in a van on its way to the local police forensics unit, and you are sat sweating the wrong side of the interrogation room, trying to decide whether the copper offering you a cigarette is the good one or the bad one?"

Obviously the bad one, he wants you to light a smoke so he can arrest you for smoking indoors, take your DNA and keep you for 42 days under anti-terror laws, cause all smokers are terrorists!

[Anonymous Coward]

Survival Guide from a plod's view

In the article you make a few comments about how to survive Plod showing too much of an interest in your doings. Written about a different source of trouble, this Survival Guide by a serving detective constable is well worth paying attention to:

http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/a-survival-guide-for-decent-folk/

A serving uniformed inspector was drifting to similar conclusions in:

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/upside-your-head/

And make sure you pay special attention to the THIRD bullet point in:

http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/overs/

[elregwatch]

The Register or the Daily Mail

I was surprised to see ElReg towing the Daily Mail line about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act being an anti-terrorism law. For one thing it was passed in 2000 - before 9/11 and it was to deal with a technical way in which UK law had been held not comply with European Human Rights Law.

Under UK law surveillance in public places has always been lawful by members of the public and by state emploiyees, but the European Court decided that for surveillance by state employees there should be an authorisation procedure. So RIPA has introduced a framework giving state employees permission to do things that anyone in the country could already authorise anyway.

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

so..

"Since they appeared to have subscribed to sites promoting such imagery, the CPS then proceeded to bring charges of incitement to distribute indecent imagery. It is not unthinkable that similar charges could be brought against individuals who had no extreme porn on their hard drives, but who were active subscribers to websites featuring such stuff."

So, someone steals your credit card details and subscribes to one of these sites. The Police get hold of your name and raid your house. Lo and behold they find no evidence of the offending material, but you get done anyway.

What a fucking shithole this country is. It wont be long before British citizens are testing the imigration policies of more liberal governments such as China or North Korea. I hope these people burn in hell for all the evil they do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Browser's "gift" mode

Excuse me for this completely unrelated question, but I'd like to understand what happens to the pics/vids that I see in my browser's "gift" mode. You see, I take pleasure in browsing for presents for my wife on a daily basis and I wouldn't want her to bump into files that would spoil the surprise.

So, do these files even touch the HD? If so, are they securely erased after use? If not, I'm wondering if I were better off with normal browsing mode and cleaning up after myself with well-known secure tools...

(As for repeat presents, I keep those files under TrueCrypt. It's true that I often forget the password of the hidden volume, which is most inconvenient, but I'm confident no matter how low the NuStasi will fall, they will never manage to convict anyone for being amnesiac.)

[SteveMD]

Even this guidence is wrong.

Any image which depicts an act the may result in serious injury is part of the definitions. by may they explain, any reasonable person would think that the act would cause serious injury. So no actual need to depict the injury, fictionally or otherwise, just actions that may result in serious injury to the breasts, genitals or anus. An even broader definition than this article suggests.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nineteen eighty four?

... Nuff said.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexual Offences Register

Not likely to end up on the sexual offences register?

I would have thought the opposite were true, particularly so when one considers the guy that was having sex with his bicycle in a locked hotel room!

If the Police can justify placing the person on the register for the offence of sex with a bicycle, then it seems to me more likely they can justify placing the person on the register for looking at 'extreme' porn.

[kenzie]

Terrifying

Of course this whole thing is nonsense, but one of the scariest parts of this is the fact that the court may be prying into your personal reasons for looking at 'offensive material' is quite horrendous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Backups, eh? We'd like a look at them too, please...

"Best advice, always, is for small businesses to keep vital data backed up at an entirely separate location. That works if your premises catch fire. It also works - or should work - if your home office is raided and your PC removed. It might be that you have to borrow or buy new PCs until your case gets to court. But so long as you have continuing access to key data, you should survive."

Right. And I'm sure that the Police will not, the moment they find out that you've got backups sited elsewhere, immediately go and get a warrant to enable them to confiscate those too. I'm sure no copper anywhere will think to themselves 'Well, he may have deleted "beyond use" the files on the PC(s) here, but maybe they're still on those offsite backups he was planning on using to keep his business going ...'

[Anonymous Coward]

@Just don't download it

If you have moved to this country and brought copies of, say, Clint Eastwood's detective films with you, then you are in violation of this law unless you destroy them today (Sunday)

The law is too broad. Depiction of nudity and violence using human actors.

As for people calling things sick, sadism comes from the urge to comfort those in pain. Sure it requires suspension of disbelief, so does all recreational sex. Unless you're trying to make babies you're suspending disbelief when you fuck..

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen this point addressed:

"Throughout its passage, and in guidance since, the Ministry of Justice has claimed absolutely that this law would not pick up any material not already covered by the Obscene Publications Act."

I've never seen anyone address the following point: If all such material is already covered by the OPA, why is the new law needed?

[Will]

@change of habit

Nice point, I assume there's already some rules around this, but if your storing your data off site. Who "possesses" the material? It's going to start getting fiddly when you introduce remote storage, as you then have to tie a person with an account, with the plausible case it was not breached, with the argument that the material on servers they don't own is possessed by them.

[SteveMD]

Clearly wrong

Again we see some comments from those who don't understand the law or simply don't know the wording of it.

Saying it should be illegal to own images of acts that are illegal to do is silly. A large proportion of mainstream entertainment depicts illegal acts. If this law were about banning the ownership of images of actual abuse, then few would object, but it is not. The law specifically bans the owning of fictional images of abuse, including images from films which have been given a certificate by the BBFC.

The law, as it stands, will prosecute, convict, lock up an individual for upto three years and place them on the sex offenders register, with all the stigma that carries, simply for looking, in private, at images of consenting adults taking part in perfectly legal activities.

Indeed, one of the defences allowed is that if you can prove you are one of the participants in the images. Thus admitting the ridiculous state of affairs that you can do it, you can go and watch others doing it live, but if you take a photo of them doing it or simply look at a photo of them doing it, even with no intention of showing that photo to anyone else, suddenly you are a menace to society and should be locked up.

Furthermore, there is no chance that anyone in a position of authority or anyone related to them and whose prosecution may embarrass the govt. would suffer such indignity. The govt. has decided they will have the final say on who gets prosecuted and who does not..

[Anonymous Coward]

They're flogging a dead horse!

I didn't fight in two world wars to have my rights to sexual gratification removed, by pen-pushing bureaucrats, trying to turn me into a thought-criminal!

Whatever happened to consenting adults in private?

And anyway the lassie, was over 18. In dog years.

Will we still be allowed to watch Carry-On films? Even Carry On Camping, where B. Windsors knockers pop out?

Double-plus good!

Another shot of Victory gin with bromide for me. I feel, a growing sexual fixation on a co-worker

[Paul Landon]

Cigarette!

"the copper offering you a cigarette"

OMG! Isn't that criminal nowadays?

[Graham Marsden]

@ Various

Firstly, thanks to John Oz for keeping this issue in the public eye and pointing out that conviction is by no means a foregone conclusion, and also that, even were a conviction to succeed, there are strong grounds for appeal under the Human Rights Act that encodes the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

@Sid - If you don't like it, don't look at it, but don't be so arrogant (as the Government has been) to assume that *your* personal views of what may or may not be "sick" should govern what everyone else is allowed to see or download. I'm sure there are some who would consider gay porn to be "sick", do you want to align yourself with them? (Oh, hang on, you advise the predominantly male readership of El Reg to "get a girlfriend"...)

@Back on planet earth...

"I guess that 70% of the adult male population of the UK is safe." Ok, so what about the other 30%? Should they be arrested and jailed for looking at "Dangerous Pictures"? The point is that the Government has passed a law which is so vague and ill-defined that even the Ministry of Justice doesn't know what it makes illegal!

I quote from the Ministry of Justice: "it may not be possible for an individual to have absolute certainty about which side of the line an image may fall"

Huh? The people who are supposed to tell everyone in this country what the law *IS* don't know what it will cover? How does that sound "back on Planet Earth"? (Hint: Try asking Franz Kafka!)

@ Henry Cobb

"Seriously, get a Constitution."

Unfortunately any Constitution passed today would be so loaded down with weasel phrases and exceptions that it would be worthless :-(

Finally,

@ RotaCyclic

"Not likely to end up on the sexual offences register?"

The notes at the end of the CJIA say that you'll only get on the SOR if you're convicted and given two or more years in jail.

Of course this doesn't mean that your name won't still be splashed all over the media and you'll be treated as a Sex Offender anyway (especially if you have or want to get a job working with "vulnerable groups" because they'll ban you for "behaviour of concern involving violent pornography", see the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act)

[Mark]

Does the IWF want anything to do with this law?

Thanks for your continued coverage on this issue.

It's just over an hour to go until "extreme" adult porn is a criminal offence to possess - the Government's guidance recommended we report material online to the IWF, yet their website still has no option for extreme images. It isn't even in their FAQ for other kinds of material!

The Government also promised guidance for the CPS - from http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ : "This will be ready in time for when section 63 comes into force. The guidance will be published shortly afterwards on the CPS website and will be accessible to the public. " - can anyone find it?

I'm just back from the CAAN protest. I had a great time - I'd just like to thank Martin Salter, and Mrs Longhurst for the good day I had today.

[Anonymous Coward]

All porn will be illegal

I submit to you that virtually all hardcore pornography will soon be illegal.

1. Hardcore pornography is pornography.

2. Hardcore pornography is disgusting (to many people).

3. Virtually all hardcore pornography depicts a life threatening act, namely unprotected sex.

3.1?. A reasonable person would think the actors are real.

QED

[Anonymous Coward]

TruCrypt etc.

The real danger with things like this is that plod will move to assuming that if you have any encryption installed that allows "plausible deniability" type options (i.e one password for the normal encrypted volume holding your bank account documents and a different password to open your porn collection) then you *must* have a hidden encrypted volume full of illegal porn. Otherwise you would not need an encryption program providing multiple levels of hidden.

Therefore if you don't pony up the illegal porn password you are guilty of failing to provide encryption passwords and so off to chokey for 2 years for you, son.

Look, by now you should all know how this government works. You are assumed guilty until they _prove_ you guilty in a [kangaroo] court of law.

[Warhelmet]

What Would Jesus Say?

Of course it's a stupid law as it is written.

But many laws are written in such broad terms. Without a written consitution case law plays a very important part in the UK judicial system. So, we may see many silly prosecutions as the police/cps test the limits of how the judiciary intrepret the law. OK, it may well be the case that the judiciary is out of step with public opinion. We might see a temporary return to something like the situation before John Mortimer and the Lady Chatterley trial, but... I can live with that.

And bad cases make bad law. The Dangerous Dogs Act is a perfect example. True, some breeds are more aggressive and unpredictable but a badly treated dog is a danger regardless of the breed. The bad case = bad law issue is the one that concerns me the most.

Some people may have a problem with the State being the guardian of public morality but arguably a State that does not protect the vulnerable from the moral excesses of certain individuals is a failed State. I would posit the bad old days of husbands not being prosecuted for sexual violence against their spouse. Arguably, the failure to prosecute could be viewed as condoning sexual violence within marriage.

The danger with a highly prescriptive law is that would allow perps to potential get off on technical interpretations of the law. Ah, it's not OK to perform a certain act with a duck strapped to your head, but a chicken, that's OK.

@Mycho - erm, "sadism comes from the urge to comfort those in pain" - I've heard that one before and I don't think it washes. For example, think about psychopathy. It is the psychopath's inability to empathise with the victim that allows them to do their pyschopathic thing. Oh sure, there maybe some people in an SM relationship who think that way but most of the BDSM fuit loops I've met have more complex and unpleasant motivations.

[Paul]

@Lee

That's a valid point, though TrueCrypt is probably the all-around best free disk encryption program available so there's actually nothing strange about choosing it even if you have no use for the hidden volume feature. You of course you'd have to convince the judge of that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't given them an inch.....

I can only echo the advice about 'don't accept a caution' because it can come back and bite you in strange ways. Many countries -- the US, for example -- restrict entry to people who have criminal convictions, especially for "crimes of moral turpitude" (which isn't quite what you think it is -- it includes drug possession). So a caution, being tantamount to a conviction, will effectively bar you from getting a US visa. This may not have been that important in the good old days before the information society because information wasn't shared -- if you're someone well known like John Lennon, expect aggravation, but if you're Joe Blow then who knows? -- but these days information is shared. It may not come up with a tourist entry under the visa waiver but it will turn up if you want a work visa or Green Card. So -- say nothing and never give an inch.

Because....really, words fail me. England is a bona fide Police State. I wouldn't want to even visit the place, much less try and live there. I don't know how you put up with it. The UK government is in essence criminalizing anything they feel fit -- whether you're a criminal or not is entirely up to the discretion of local officials. Scary stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Lee

"if you don't pony up the illegal porn password you are guilty of failing to provide encryption passwords"

Hidden volume? What are you talking about sir? I have already told you I use this utility that someone on a forum recommended to store my credit card numbers and passwords, and I have already given you the password. What was your question again?

[Anonymous Coward]

"any reasonable person"

oh dear.

where is the legal definition of this? Does the phrase "any" mean that you just need one person to agree that the images are ok and so you're off the hook?

Hold on. I'm a reasonable person, so maybe they should use my opinion?

As long as the "reasonable person" doesn't read the Daily Mail then we've got a chance.

Bugger.

[michael]

@chris

"I've never seen anyone address the following point: If all such material is already covered by the OPA, why is the new law needed?"

simpley this the OPA bans the "pubiclatuion" not the ownership

so if you had a web site hosted in the uk with this stuff on it you can be done but if you down load if form a server abroad you cannot seames as stated 90% or more comes form outside the uk (ironicley most form the us) then they can not do pepol

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh

Last night I wastched Good Night and, Good Luck. It's a shame TV news media has reached a point where it is run by a small number of who either don't want to rock the boat, are part of the moral crusade to "protect" the "people" from "themselves" ora are mere mouth pieces of the Police and Government.

There are no brave people left in popular media, it's a very sad state of affairs, as until there is nobody will bother to actually question what the government and the police feed them.

Infact nobody seems willing to question anything, foreign or local, unless it's inline with the view of Government or the Moral elite.

The internet isn't really a source that has a large sway in the public conciouness - if you want to get noticed you have to have a TV show at a reasonable time.

Only today I heard something about whether stand up comedians should clean up their acts - hate to tell you that 3 of the greatest comedians, George Carlin, Bill Hicks and Frankie Boyle, are some of the most offensive people ever - if you don't posses a brain - if however you do posses a brain they are three of the cleverest commentators on societies.

*sigh* here's waiting for a crusader for real people.

[Lionel Baden]

Self regulation !

I cannot beleive this law is actually inplace !!!

Self regulation works fine for the most of us.

I mean like really Just look at the reactions on the web to people watching 2 girls 1 cup (regardless of wether it was fake or not). We dont really like that sort of thing and the people who do ... well if they want to take pictures of themselves fine ... Who the hell are we to judge.

[Sarah Bee]

Re: What Would Jesus Say?

>It is the psychopath's inability to empathise with the victim that allows them to do their pyschopathic thing. Oh sure, there maybe some people in an SM relationship who think that way but most of the BDSM fuit loops I've met have more complex and unpleasant motivations.

That seems a rather narrow-minded view. It smacks* of the inverse of the 'some of my best friends are gay/black/Jewish *actually*' fallback. You don't give the impression you really spoke to any of the many, many 'fruit loops' you've apparently encountered long enough to take the wildest guess at the nature of their complex motivations. That's the point - this is a very complex issue which the government has been awesomely, patronisingly, dangerous reductive on. Looking past your kneejerk revulsion is generally a good idea when you're making laws that could affect people's lives.

If anyone's got any cheap shots they think would be funny, well, don't, it's boring.

*Ahem.

[Sarah Bee]

Re: What Would Jesus Say?

Oh, I dropped this

-ly

I had my hands full at the time, etc.

[Ash]

Careful with TrueCrypt

Windows logs the mounted volumes on a PC. Mount a second volume in quick succession after your host volume and a suitably asute tech will spot that you could possibly have a hidden partition.

Personally, i'd not bother. In this age of Flash video, there's no need to download anything. Music from YouTube, movies from Veoh. Done and done.

[Anonymous Coward]

re: rodent with huge testicles

You will be arrested for having a crap sense of humour.

Why does anyone store porn when you can get a never ending stream of new porn on the web?

[Anonymous Coward]

IWF?

Like another commenter, I'm wondering what role, if any, the IWF will be playing in this.

Part of the rationale for this new law is that the Obscene Publications Act doesn't apply to stuff hosted outside the UK. Therefore, possession of such material (once brought into the UK by, say, downloading it) needs to be criminalised.

Possession of child sexual abuse images is also a crime, and the IWF helps protect people from exposure to such images by blacklisting such images on the web when those images are hosted outside the UK. ISPs then implement that censorship using, for example, the Clean Feed system.

Does anyone know if the IWF will be similarly blacklisting "extreme" porn when hosted outside the UK? Given (part of) what this new law is supposed to achieve, it would seem odd for the IWF not to blacklist such material.

Paris, because I just don't know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Careful with TrueCrypt

"Windows logs the mounted volumes on a PC. Mount a second volume in quick succession after your host volume and a suitably asute tech will spot that you could possibly have a hidden partition."

Congratulations Ash for declaring to the world that you know dick about TrueCrypt and the way its hidden volumes work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Re: What Would Jesus Say?

Nothing,

He has already been arrested and is being questioned over the pornographic images he and his disciples made depicting his crucifixion.

[peter]

Another reason to never accept a caution

If you are convicted in a court, you conviction becomes 'spent' after so many years (how many yeard depend on several factors)

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 enables some criminal convictions to become 'spent', or ignored, after a 'rehabilitation period'. A rehabilitation period is a set length of time from the date of conviction. After this period, with certain exceptions, an ex-offender is not normally obliged to mention their conviction when applying for a job or obtaining insurance, or when involved in criminal or civil proceedings. Custodial sentences of more than 2 1/2 years can never become spent.

For some reason beyond me, a caution is never spent - so you will have to declare it on every job application forever. Ouch

I say take your chances and go to court.

[Anonymous Coward]

warrent searches

I cant comment for every police force in the country but I know from personal experience that it would be unlikely that the police would do an extensive enough search of a premises on a warrent looking for extreme pron to find stuff that wasnt stored on your pc.

Games consoles, PVR's, mp3 players could all be used to store extrmem pron and these are rarely seized in searches as the coppers doing the search dont even think they could be used to store images/video. Even storing them on a dvd-r and printing up a nice box and label and putting it in the middle of your dvd collection as some obscure film no one will wanna watch would probable get it past a search as they tend to only take stuff that doesnt look like an original (ie CD-R, DVD-R)

In regards to the comment:

"Right. And I'm sure that the Police will not, the moment they find out that you've got backups sited elsewhere, immediately go and get a warrant to enable them to confiscate those too. I'm sure no copper anywhere will think to themselves 'Well, he may have deleted "beyond use" the files on the PC(s) here, but maybe they're still on those offsite backups he was planning on using to keep his business going ..."

Unless you tell them that you have made copies and store them elsewhere how will they know? I am assuming that you wouldnt be daft enough to store them at an address registered to you and no court in the country (well at the moment) would issue a warrent to search every address of your friend and family incase you had made backups and said to a mate can you store this external hdd here for me with my backups of 'buisness' docs on it, (encypted of course to stop your mates having a gander)

[Chris Collins]

Mr Hands

What about the Mr Hands video? I can't say I was sexually gratified by it but I did watch it out of morbid curiosity

[Graham Marsden]

@What would Jesus Say?

Firstly you missed the full stop after "I think this is a stupid law". It doesn't matter *how* it is written, it is a stupid law, full stop.

You may "be able to live with" a return to the situation before the Lady Chatterley trial, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be obliged to do the same thing, nor should we be required to self-censor simply because the Government doesn't think that we can't be trusted to look at this material and not act in a responsible manner.

You say "Some people may have a problem with the State being the guardian of public morality but arguably a State that does not protect the vulnerable from the moral excesses of certain individuals is a failed State." If you (or the Government) could show the slightest shred of credible *proof* that this law will "protect the vulnerable" you may have a point, but apart from the data which they cherry-picked during their biased and discredited "Rapid Evidence Assessment" (data which has very often now been discredited itself) they haven't been able to point to anything that will prove this will "protect" anyone. Besides, we already *have* laws to protect people from acts of violence, rape, murder etc, so how will this law do anything more than those?

This law is simply based on the "Precautionary Principle" that "well, we don't know it will do any good, but let's ban it anyway, just to be on the safe side" and it's clear that you support that sort of fallacious reasoning with your ridiculous assertion that if they hadn't passed this law they would have been "condoning sexual violence".

As for your comments about "psychopaths", "fruit loops" and "unpleasant motivations", it simply shows that you have *no* real clue about what you're pontificating about.. I run a business selling BDSM gear, I go to fetish parties, I have played with many people into BDSM and I can tell you for a fact that the very vast majority of BDSMers play in a way that is Safe, Sane and Consensual and they don't need you or the Government sticking their noses into their business "just in case" there may be one or two "fruit loops" out there.

[andy gibson]

Tip of the iceberg

Within five years we'll see nothing anywhere that could possibly offend us. When was the last time the film Dambusters was shown on TV with the scenes with the infamous N-word named dog intact? Hell, even C4 are now showing heavily edited episodes of The Simpsons at 6pm when they've already shown the episodes without edits in the past.

I'm reminded of the episode where Hans Moleman is watching "Gone With the Wind - Edited for Seniors" and he makes the remark "wasn't there a war in that film" and he's dragged away by two goons.

[Sid]

@Graham Marsden

" @Sid - If you don't like it, don't look at it, but don't be so arrogant (as the Government has been) to assume that *your* personal views of what may or may not be "sick" should govern what everyone else is allowed to see or download. I'm sure there are some who would consider gay porn to be "sick", do you want to align yourself with them? (Oh, hang on, you advise the predominantly male readership of El Reg to "get a girlfriend"...)"

So fine, get a boyfriend ~ I honestly don't care, since I'm not in the slightest bit homophobic. Your insinuation is a best mischevious, at worst the same illiberal narrow minded assumption you accuse me of.

Why should it be 'arrogant' to believe that anyone who wants to view 'Extreme' porn as being sick?

Who ~ apart from a deviant ~ would find 'pictures' that depict "certain specific imagery, including necrophilia, bestiality, activity depicting serious harm to breast, anus or genitals or life-threatening activity" a normal situation? Where's the arrogance in that view?

This Government has introduced a lot of laws that I totally disagree with, in part including this one, however, as broad sweeping as it is, it will not affect perhaps 95%* of the population, (including hetrosexuals and gays). If it affects you there are a couple of things you can do, either cut and paste the above article and keep it handy, or perhaps just don't download extreme porn.

Yours

Uncle Sid (Who doesn't have a business affected by this law, and therefore doesn't feel the urge to attack anyone who disagrees with him )

*A statistic made up on the spot.

[Ed Blake]

Consenting Partner

It would be particuarly interesting to see how somebody would prove that their dog gave consent during the act.

Is it enough to assume that animal instinct is proof enough?

[michael]

@ sid

"Who ~ apart from a deviant ~ would find 'pictures' that depict "certain specific imagery, including necrophilia, bestiality, activity depicting serious harm to breast, anus or genitals or life-threatening activity" a normal situation? Where's the arrogance in that view?"

well yes but "deviant" is a very strong word I thought we where supost to be torlent in this day and age and the arrogance is that you can not concive of a person who would find that fun you beleve that your view is the only view

[Anonymous Coward]

@Sid

Even if it were a law that would only effect 0.01% of the population that would still be 330,000 other wise innocent people who would have been made criminal by this act.

Even if it were only 3,300 people I feel that it is wrong, and if it were 33 people, well we probably have laws against what those 33 people may do anyway - e.g. the handful of people who like Extreme porn but are so unstable that they would harm, torture, murder and or, rape an unwilling person/animal. However as mentioned those 33 people shall have commited an actual criminal offence.

I do not subscribe to the realm of thought that feels that you should round people up who may commit a crime. 3,300 people should not be imprisoned/fined/gain a criminal record, in order to "save" 33 (theoretical) vicitms. Who shall probably not be saved, becouse the monsters that would commit such offensive are most likely quite capable of avoiding detection until after they have commited their heinous acts, probably several heinous acts.

[Jon]

@Warhelmet - fruit loops

Maybe if there were less people like you around people would not have to be "in the closet" on BDSM and you would realise the vast majority are safe, sane and consensual.

Hell I was playing last weekend and the only complaints I got were the bruises didn't come out well enough. I'm a SMer and it only works if the sub is pleased, so you can add me to the other side of the fruit loop* baseket.

PS I fully admit I am loopy

[Anonymous Coward]

Police have the most Porn

In a conversation with a police pal some 45 years ago, he told me that he had rooms full of

porn both film and printed at the station.

It was all a bit of a carry-on to setup the projector and screen to view the films as there were no

VHS players or Internet in those days.

Smoking Evenings.... were the way the police and rugby clubs and others organized the porn

in those days. When they wanted new porn it just took a raid on Sex Shop and away they went.

I'am quite sure no such activity occurs in these modern times as there are no corrupt police anymore. (I read that somewhere)

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

reading the "police have the most porn" post reminds me of an episode of Londons Burning when the guys are all watching a porno and the only woman fireman comes in and the guys are all "oooooo - a bit too much for you love" and she responds with something along the lines of

"Nah, I watched last week, terible shame she bites his dick off in the end."

[Graham Marsden]

@Sid

You ask "Why should it be 'arrogant' to believe that anyone who wants to view 'Extreme' porn as being sick?"

Well, you answer your own question in your very next paragraph when you say: "Who ~ apart from a deviant ~ would find 'pictures' that depict "certain specific imagery, including necrophilia, bestiality, activity depicting serious harm to breast, anus or genitals or life-threatening activity" a normal situation?"

Using the word "normal" in this context (not to mention the word "deviant") shows that you consider your opinions of what is "normal" or not "deviant" to be the only ones that matter and you are demanding that I prove otherwise.

Well, sorry, but the burden of proof is on you (and the Government and those who support this law) to demonstrate that this is "abnormal" or "deviant" and not only that, but also that this will actually threaten or cause harm to others. Until you can do this, you are simply being arrogant.

You are equally as arrogant when you suggest that "it will not affect perhaps 95%* of the population" Even if it won't affects 99.9% of the population (a number that is equally made up) that would still leave some six thousand people who *will* be affected by it!

Do you think that all of those 6000 are really such a threat to the rest of us that they should be locked up in jail simply for possessing pictures because they can't be trusted to act like responsible adults? If so, that's arrogant!

> If it affects you there are a couple of things you can do, either cut and paste the above article and keep it handy, or perhaps just don't download extreme porn.

Again, you speak from arrogance (and ignorance). Neither I, nor anyone else, should be obliged to self-censor simply for having material that the Government doesn't like, nor should I be told "we think this is bad for you, so don't download it". That approach has been tried in places like China, Iran and East Germany, do you want to copy them?

PS "Uncle" Sid. It is not my *business* that is affected by the law, it is my civil rights and my liberties which are threatened! What was that comment about "being mischievous"?

[John Ozimek]

@ Police have most Porn

Absolutely.

Part of my interest in policing matters stems, I suspect, from the fact that my father was both a GP and an insomniac. As a result, he took up work as a Police Surgeon during the night hours (with the West Midlands Force), often being called out at one or two in the morning to administer tests, declare someone deceased (it never ceased to amaze me that no matter what the state of the corpse, only a medical practitioner could pronounce it dead) or otherwise help with inquiries.

In his less guarded moments, he did let slip that one station (Belgrave Road?), housed materials impounded by the Police in the course of raids, and it was common practice for him to be invited in to watch late night pron screenings.

Of course, that all happened during the '70's and no doubt could not possibly happen nowadays.

Paris - the only other film star on site.

[Mark]

re: Seriously, get a Constitution.

Huh? So that GB can wipe his arse on that like GWB did on yours?

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came...

First they came for the pedophiles, but I was not a pedo so I did nothing.

When they came for the necrophiliacs, I was not a necro so I did nothing.

Then they came for the BSDM fetishists, but I was not into BDSM so I did nothing.

They came for the nudists, I was not a nudist so I did nothing.

Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak out.

[Warhelmet]

Bah...

My revulsion to BDSM? God, no. I don't empathise because I have no real inclinations in that direction. What I find incredibly difficult to deal with is sitting there as a manager and having a member of staff tell me what their partner was doing to them. Or having someone open up to me about years of abuse. Speaking to people who are non-consensual victims of sexual sadism isn't fun. Knowing the perps is even worse. I really don't want go into detail. Just remembering stuff and thinking about it is very upsetting.

And I was subject to violent punishment as a child.

Of course, I am totally guilty of extrapolating my anecdotal evidence to a wider situation than I should but... It is fair to say that I know folks who are into BSDM and do the safe/sane bit but, sigh, the emotional impact on me is zero compared to the other experiences.

Am I not permitted to have an emotional reaction? It strikes me that some of the posts above represent an emotional reaction to the legislation.

Yes, I do have a real problem with depictions of sexual violence. And I think Graham's position is one of "special pleading". So, if there are two images depicting the same act, one of them is OK because the motivation is fine by your lights, but the other isn't? Is this position reasonable? Images carry no instrinsic information regarding the motivation behind them.

Yes, I am "illiberal" if you want to call me that. But that does not mean that my position is invalid. Sid makes an important point. This law will affect very few people.

[Frank Fisher]

From my cold dead hands...

Good article John - amazing that some people *still* think this is about real snuff -- it specifically criminalises *pretend* snuff FFS. There' no law against pretending to kill somone is there? But now there is against photographing it.

Y'know, I'd bloody love to get this law in front of a jury. But I doubt very much that the DPP will risk bringing a prosecutuion against anyone with the balls to front these nasty little fascists out.

In fact, I still doubt there'll be any prosecutions at all. Doesn't change the fact it's an evil law, designed simply to frighten people.

[Sid]

Err... thats just sophistry

@Graham

I'm not demanding you you 'prove' anything, all I asked is that you justify why you thought my points were arrogant? unfortunately, instead of coming up with a justification to your use of those words, you decide to use the old old "show ME the proof" reasoning.

Do you really hold the view that looking at pictures of Necrophilia, or bestiality or other deviation (as outlined in the act), is normal behavior? Do you really believe that a picture of somebodys anus being torn apart could be considered as something that doesn't cause harm to others?

You make the assumption (all to often) that I am arrogant, and now apparently also ignorant, simply because I don't hold the views you do. Well there's a refreshingly liberal stance.

So your civil rights and your liberties are affected by this law, well son, theres a really simple answer to that. At the risk of repeating myself, oh again, don't download Extreme porn.

I really don't care what you or others get up to in the privacy of their own homes, however the internet isn't just there for YOUR benefit, others, including children, use it, and if people who upload (or download) 'Extreme' pornography, are to stupid to realise that, then Governments will act to curb these abuses, so through their own selfish stupidity these people deserve these laws to make them conform.

yours

Uncle Sid.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Warhelmet

Your argument about "two images depicting the same act", where one is consentual and the other isn't, could be applied to porn and nudity more generally. You could criminalise softcore porn - naked adults - on essentially the same basis.

Do you want to ban all porn, just in case the participants were coerced somehow?

[Anonymous Coward]

@Warhelmet

And sadly because of people forcing opinions similar to yours into law, thousands of innocent people are at risk of criminal convictions.

If someone is abused then they have to go forward, banning pornography wont stop someone abusing their partner. Infact people who have a partner to abuse have less need for violent pornography. Again you create a relation between pornography and real life, the purpose of this law is not to protect abused partners, it has the spurious purpose of protecting random encounters from murder/rape.

You should only lose your life and, your freedoms, if you have abused somebody, killed somebody, raped somebody, but never becouse you have wanked to something other people don't like.

[Jason Tan]

Prohibtion - this should be great for the LE industry

Alcohol, Drugs, Guns.

Prohibition has never worked in the past - why will it work now?

Prohibition of previously legal items

- pushes up prices

- criminalizes the otherwise innocent people

- usually helps organised crime obtain better control over markets, police, govt and judiciary

- usually lines someone's pocket - police overtime, auctroned confiscated assets, law enforcement tools sold, presumably in thsi case software and I dare say a vast number of prosecutions once they start taking single frames of movies out of context and start judging images on the juries and judges perceptions of them rather than the owner or creator of them.

The idea that your guilt is defined by how turned on (or guilty feeling) someone else gets by an image! Amazing.

Letting UK magistrates judge extreme porn? Cat amongst the pigeons there.

If worse comes to take it to the house of lords, you're guaranteed to "get off" - they apparently have some very extreme tastes.

[Paul]

Sick

Sid, why do you keep conflating non-normal with sick? That's why you come across as arrogant. You're effectively saying "they're different, and therefore inferior". Eating snails isn't normal behavior either, should we outlaw that?

[Sid]

@paul

No, I'm not saying people who view this stuff are 'inferior' I would never hold that view. But I don't equate it with normal behavior. Surely normal behavior is behavior that is carried out by the majority of the population. The majority of the population don't actively seek out 'Extreme' porn therefore, that activity is not 'normal' . If you deviate from the norm, you are exhibiting deviant behavior.

Arrogant is the wrong word to use. Intolerant would be a better one.

If a snail was sexually abused and physically violated then had its picture taken before consumption, then yes I would be happy for the outlawing of eating snails, since it is'nt, I have no opinion on the subject.

Yours

Uncle sid.

.

[michael]

@ sid

I realy should not do this cos it just incorages you but I thik everyboady should have the right to argue with pepol who hold the opersate views

"Do you really hold the view that looking at pictures of Necrophilia, or bestiality or other deviation (as outlined in the act), is normal behavior?"

oh where to start

I think our main argument is that there are lots of things that are not "normal" beheavor why is the goverment banning this one even when nobaody is hurt (rember stills form a lot of horror movies will be banned if they are taken out of the context of the movie and we know noboady gets hurt in them) exept in a purley mathmeticle sence there is no such thing as normal just currently aceptiable we are all diffrent learn to embrace it

""I'm not demanding you you 'prove' anything, all I asked is that you justify why you thought my points were arrogant? unfortunately, instead of coming up with a justification to your use of those words, you decide to use the old old "show ME the proof" reasoning.""

we think your points are argount because you think that your point of view for normal is right others are wrong and you think pepol who disagree should be locked up and since they are planning of making things illagle I think it is quite reasonable to be asked to be shown proof why we should be made criminles

""You make the assumption (all to often) that I am arrogant, and now apparently also ignorant, simply because I don't hold the views you do. Well there's a refreshingly liberal stance.""

no we think that you are repeeting the same argumet over and over again with out realy listing to what is being said as proved by the fact you repete sentences in this comment as fact that we argued agenst in the prevoius comment

""So your civil rights and your liberties are affected by this law, well son, theres a really simple answer to that. At the risk of repeating myself, oh again, don't download Extreme porn.""

at the risk of repetting my self downloading extreem porn of doing anything that is not proven to be harmfull to others IS the libertie we are trying to protect

""I really don't care what you or others get up to in the privacy of their own homes, however the internet isn't just there for YOUR benefit, others, including children, use it, and if people who upload (or download) 'Extreme' pornography, are to stupid to realise that, then Governments will act to curb these abuses, so through their own selfish stupidity these people deserve these laws to make them conform."""

straw man agrument the internet is not there for YOUR benefit eather (in fact the adult industry did a lot to help the growth of the net so it is more of "us" then "you") but the main point is that you do not have to go and look at extream porn if you do not want to noboady is forcing you to and you would have to be doing somthing very wrong to come across it by acdent

""Do you really believe that a picture of somebodys anus being torn apart could be considered as something that doesn't cause harm to others?""

intresting point but the picture is doing no harm at all the act is but form just the picture we know nothing about the act I have seen pictures of pepol getting ther heads crushed and cut in half and then they showed up at the movies premier so it seamed it did them no harm at all this law is not about banning the act but the pictures of it

sorry I got your points in the wrong order I got a bit confused and apoligies for my spelling and grammer I am dyslexic

[Jon]

Am I not permitted to have an emotional reaction?

You are permitted to it but it should not be used in scientific study or forming laws.

The problem with group think (from Mainstreammedia mainly) is that the emotional side far outways the logical side.

We have done a complete 180 on the logical scientific method built up over the last 500 years and gone back to superstitions, hunchs and "it feels right" so must be true.

We are emotional creatures so we shouldn't get rid of it all together but letting emotion lead to histeria will only lead to trouble.

I suppose you also think its true with the new Victims Hero that if someone murders someone with a 'loving mother who is emotinally distraught' they should get a harsher punishment than the person who murders the prostitute who's family had disowened them and has noone to ply their case to the court^HHH papers.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Uncle Sid

You're a Dick.

[pastamasta]

Well, shit.

Any law which is so poorly-defined that an ordinary citizen can't tell whether they are breaking it or not should be no law at all, regardless of the subject matter, because it runs up against the fundamental legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse, i.e. you can be prosecuted for breaking the law even if you didn't know about the law. The justification for that principle is that the law is discoverable, and therefore if you have a law which is _not_ discoverable (by virtue of being incomprehensible), then how can it be a just law?

Hell, 12 miles - handcarts available for hire.

[Anonymous Coward]

@sid

You truly are a dick sir.

@michael

"apoligies for my spelling and grammer I am dyslexic"

Oh yeah, dyslexia, that illness that prevents some people from using dictionaries and spell-checkers.

[Sarah Bee]

Re: @sid

Right.

AC - Don't be rude.

Michael - Knowing you're dyslexic I'm inclined to let your comments through, but that does have to mean I have to moderate all the abuse from people who either don't know or don't care. Can you help me out?

[Warhelmet]

Erm...

I get the feeling from some of the posts that there is a belief that somehow pornography is not connected to the "real world". That somehow pornography exists in a moral vacuum completely separated from the moral implications of the "real world" acts that are depicted.

Desensitisation anyone?

In reality, I don't have a problem with the BDSM community making pornography for their own comsumption and the consumption of interested others. I might not like the images, they may provoke a strong emotional reaction in me, but I can choose not to look at them. And there are things that can be done to ensure that looking at such pornography is a very deliberate act rather than an innocent stumble upon.

[michael]

@Sarah Bee

I tried reading the dictionary at one point but I found the plot boring and the caricatures under developed so I gave up

seriously I have installed the spell checker in my fire fox and I will now use it so my spelling should at least get better

[Sarah Bee]

Re: @Sarah Bee

That's better! Thanks.

Hmm, I wonder if I can get everyone else who's got no excuse to use spellcheck. Hmmmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Question

The law states about acts that could cause "serious harm" to certain parts of the body...

Now, if it's serious harm as being viewed by other people, that means using perfectly legal toys in perfectly legal ways could fall into that category, wouldn't they?

Hate to think what'll happen to places like Ann Summers.

Oh wait. Next up: banning the sale on sex toys since they encourage bad behaviour.

[Graham Marsden]

@Warhelmet

I am sorry that you have had to experience stories of people who have experienced sexual violence, but do you honestly think that this law will do *anything* to change the number of people who experience that sort of thing? How many of those abusers had actually looked at "extreme pornography" and then been "inspired" to go on and carry out their abuse?

I think that you would find that most of them did it because they "enjoyed" it and the power it gave them over the person they were abusing, not because of anything they'd seen. They might, subsequently, have looked at images which fitted in with their "preferences" (no matter how deplorable such preferences might be) but we should not reverse cause and effect, yet that is what this law does.

> And I think Graham's position is one of "special pleading". So, if there are two images depicting the same act, one of them is OK because the motivation is fine by your lights, but the other isn't? Is this position reasonable? Images carry no instrinsic information regarding the motivation behind them.

Err, no, you first miss my point then, inadvertently, agree with it!

The fact is that, yes, there is no "intrinsic information" regarding the motivation behind them, yet this law purports to be justified on the grounds of how an image *appears* to a viewer! How can two images of the same act be both criminal and not criminal simply depending on how it *looks* to someone?

[Inachu]

LOL!

I like the comment one person said about a judge who decides what is pornographic.

If a ppicture gives the judge a hardon then it is deemed pornographic.

Almost same situation here.

But I would just remove anything currently they have and just make a side note that if any porn that shows blood durring intercourse comming out of the body be it on a male or female no matter where the location the blood is comming out of then it should be deemed illegal.

Bright red spots on skin shown as abuse should be banned and deemed illegal.

Stalking or simulated stalking made to illicit fear in the victim should be banned.

Crying or twisted facial features such as fright as to emulate that of pain should be banned.

Emulated or simulating the examples above in real life or in animation 3D CAD or cartoon drawings showld be banned.

[Graham Marsden]

@Sid

> Do you really hold the view that looking at pictures of Necrophilia, or bestiality or other deviation (as outlined in the act), is normal behavior? Do you really believe that a picture of somebodys anus being torn apart could be considered as something that doesn't cause harm to others?

Do you believe that *your* definition of "normal" is the only one that is valid? If so, that's arrogant.

Do you believe that a staged and faked image of an act is the same as someone actually carrying out that act? If so, that's arrogant.

You continue with your arrogance when you state: "So your civil rights and your liberties are affected by this law, well son, theres a really simple answer to that. At the risk of repeating myself, oh again, don't download Extreme porn."

Do you *really* not comprehend this issue? You are saying "if your rights are affected by this law, don't exercise these rights"!

I have the right to walk down the street and go about my lawful business "without let or hindrance". If the Government introduces compulsory ID cards, that will infringe on my rights. So your solution would be "well don't walk down the street, then!"???

> I really don't care what you or others get up to in the privacy of their own homes,

Yet this law will stop me from owning pictures *EVEN IN* the privacy of my own home! Even if they are pictures I have taken myself of two other consenting adults engaged in legal activities if, in someone else's *OPINION* they are "life threatening" or "likely to result serious injury" because I was not a "direct participant" in the acts. And even if I took the pictures with a self-timer and I was a "direct participant" in those acts, if I cannot *prove* that I was, then I am still guilty of a criminal act! (Presumed innocent? Not any more, sunshine)

> however the internet isn't just there for YOUR benefit, others, including children, use it,

Oh dear, it's the desperate "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" argument. The internet is the *world*. If you're a parent, would you let your children go wandering out anywhere without any control or supervision? No? Then why would you let them do so on the internet?

It is a *parent's* ultimate responsibility to take care of their children, not mine, nor the Government.

> and if people who upload (or download) 'Extreme' pornography, are to stupid to realise that, then Governments will act to curb these abuses, so through their own selfish stupidity these people deserve these laws to make them conform.

Oh good grief! "Make them conform"?!

Yes, Big Brother! We must all be obedient Proles who are not permitted selfthink and accept whatever blackwhite the Party tells us. We must not look at anything not approved by Pornosec in case it causes us to engage in Crimethink or Sexcrime!

Ownlife is forbidden!

Ignorance is Strength!

[Graham Marsden]

@Warhelmet

> Desensitisation anyone?

Just because someone may become "desensitised" to something, does not mean that it automatically follows that they're going to be inclined to *do* it!

> there are things that can be done to ensure that looking at such pornography is a very deliberate act rather than an innocent stumble upon.

Exactly! If you don't like it, don't look at it. Install blocking software, sign up to Cleanfeed etc. But don't pass laws that say "I don't want to see this, so let's ban it such that *nobody* else can see it either!"

PS @ Michael

Re: The Dictionary: The Zebra did it.

[Anonymous Coward]

@First they came...

"First they came for the pedophiles, but I was not a pedo so I did nothing.

When they came for the necrophiliacs, I was not a necro so I did nothing.

Then they came for the BSDM fetishists, but I was not into BDSM so I did nothing.

They came for the nudists, I was not a nudist so I did nothing.

Then they came for me, and there was no-one left to speak out."

Amen, brother.

[Anonymous Coward]

what if

Devils advocate here.. I generally disagree with this law (wording.) It seems some of you are against the spirit of the law. What if I rape and kill the heck out of some people, it goes to trial, but I get off on a technicality. Can I sell the tapes? How about if I consented to being tortured, raped and murdered. Not necessarily in that order. Can we film and sell that? Awesome. All you need is a note from me right?

ha... eating a cow is ok, but sex with steak... that's just sick.

-AC because I'm just brainstorming, and it doesn't count until you say it right?

[Paul]

@Sid

> No, I'm not saying people who view this stuff are 'inferior' I would never hold that view. But I don't equate it with normal behavior. Surely normal behavior is behavior that is carried out by the majority of the population.

Indeed. But "sick" is a value judgment. If you had just said initially that looking at "extreme porn" was not normal, I would have to agree, but if you're going to call it sick, you should offer some evidence that it's harmful or otherwise "bad".

> Arrogant is the wrong word to use. Intolerant would be a better one.

Yes, you are intolerant for sure, but more than a little arrogant too.

> If a snail was sexually abused and physically violated then had its picture taken before consumption, then yes I would be happy for the outlawing of eating snails, since it is'nt, I have no opinion on the subject.

I wouldn't have figured you for an animal rights guy, but more to the point it sounds like you're talking about non-consensual violence now. Why? That's not what concerns most people about the law. If two adults get off on having their genitals bitten or want to stab each other with spikes prior to sex, why would it be wrong if I wanted to watch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Re: @Sarah Bee

"Hmm, I wonder if I can get everyone else who's got no excuse to use spellcheck. Hmmmmm."

You could ask amanfrommars to use a semantics-checker...

[michael]

re:what if

"What if I rape and kill the heck out of some people, it goes to trial, but I get off on a technicality. Can I sell the tapes? How about if I consented to being tortured, raped and murdered. Not necessarily in that order. Can we film and sell that? Awesome. All you need is a note from me right?"

BIG IANAL WARNING

as I understand the OPA and other existing laws

no to selling tapes cos that is publishing and is already illegal under the laws

again no as that is publishing under the act

but let me make 2 points in return

1. as you got off technically no crime is committed it may seam horrid to victims but as you where a-quitted no crime

2. in that situation we know how those pictures came about and then they can go after the "real" purp this law is worded as to make the facts behind the pics irrelevant it is purely perception that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

By happy coincidence

I don't have any vile Porn on my machine. But even if I did how could it get there if it got past the IWF's 404 list?

Also, in the case where I got called up for trial, could I call Mark Oaten as an expert witness, to ask whether he thought it was VILE and DISGUSTING what I was doing?

[Sid]

...sigh

@Paul

>...but if you're going to call it sick, you should offer some evidence that it's harmful or otherwise "bad".

Lots of people hold lots of different viewpoints without them ever being asked to justify it through evidence, I could turn the table and instead say "If you don't think its harmful then prove it", However that would be pointless.

I'm calling the desire to view these pictures as 'sick' because that is the viewpoint I hold, I realise that viewpoint is different to others, but does that make it less valid?

> If two adults get off on having their genitals bitten or want to stab each other with spikes prior to sex, why would it be wrong if I wanted to watch?

I can't answer that for you, I'm not moralizing on what others wish to get up to in their own lives, the subject is the possession of pictures of "Necrophilia, Bestiality etc..."

@Graham

As I've stated, I have no issue with what you get up to in your private life. I've simply pointed out that wishing to view 'Extreme' porn is not and never will be 'normal' behavior, Most people would be revolted by such pictures, so to actively seek these pictures out, is not displaying normality.

I believe thats 'sick', you consider my view as arrogant, I don't. If others wish to insult me for that, then that displays their own intolerance, not mine.

I'm just using a word that the vast majority of the population would use when confronted by pictures of "Necrophilia, bestiality, ... etc... etc... etc...". My original question was "Why do you think that arrogant?", as in "why do you think that I'm assuming a viewpoint that could be considered superior?", when I don't feel I am? I'm simply making the same statement most people would in the same situation.

Now, if you take exception to the use of that word, doesn't that display a teensy weensy bit of an inability to allow others their opinion? perhaps a smidgen of intolerance? perhaps you feel you're being personally attacked, so therefore retaliate at anyone who doesn't agree with you, when plainly the word wasn't aimed at you personally. There's a word for that too.

I am technically literate, I take all the precautions I can to ensure that I and my family can surf the internet without being subjected to these pictures. however, even with all these precautions, I still find myself inadvertently, from time to time, coming across them.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people (yes, including children) who do not understand the danger of clicking a harmless looking link (or even one designed for the curious), and being subjected to a barrage of 'Extreme' porn. They normally do not have the technical savvy to make it stop. I know, I have had to wipe this crap off a lot of computers in my time.

(you'll probably now take exception to me calling it 'crap' ~ It is stuff that I don't want, to be flushed away by the exersizing of the delete key i.e. 'crap')

These pictures are often linked in the press to the behavior of frankly ill, (or 'sick'), people who commit sex crimes, I have no idea of the validity of that assumption, but it matters little, since in the eyes of the general public that link has been established.

If the sex industry had really got their act together and ensured that only those wishing to view these pictures could do so in the privacy of their own homes, instead of thinking that they'd make more money by 'advertising', The lawmakers would not have stepped in and come up with an admittedly too broad-ranging act.

The majority of internet users are not surfing for 'Extreme' porn (despite Michaels belief ~ you're really 'not' in the majority son), The majority want to be able to use the internet, without having to install lots of programs to make their surfing 'safer'.

So, We have the 'rights' of a small minority of the population, as opposed to the 'rights' of a majority of the population, now where do you think the politicians will look for the votes?

Don't blame the Politicians or the general public, blame the people who thought the likes of "Goatse" was funny.

yours

Uncle Sid.

[Shane]

World of Warcraft

is it illegal to watch a tauren druid in cat form spamming x or /sit over the top of a naked draenei priest while the priest is yelling what appears to the druid as "YOU ME RUFF LOVE". If i fraps'd it and youtube it would i be in court over it?

[Rafael]

V

Remember, remember

the fifth of November......

Just the beginning: THEY really ARE starting Tought Police.

And Civilisation´s DeLeveraging WILL give them the excuse.

´Tis getting cold.

[michael]

@ sid

not going to contuin arguing over most of your comment cos we are reaching the silly stage and I think sara would prefer it if we stopped soon but one thing I will say

"I am technically literate, I take all the precautions I can to ensure that I and my family can surf the internet without being subjected to these pictures. however, even with all these precautions, I still find myself inadvertently, from time to time, coming across them."

this law will do zero to stop those pictures being out there or you being sent links to them all it dose is make you a criminal if you look at them the law even sort of admits that as the law criminalises possession not distribution

[Pyrrho Huxley]

The thin edge of the wedge

This is just a test from the government to see if they can get away with an aburdity: making owning pictures of legal acts illegal. The overall longterm intention is to make sexual images illegal. Here's why: most sexual images are of women. These images "objectify" women. Objectification leads to rape. Therefore, pictures of naked women "cause" rape. Therefore they should be banned. There are lots of women who actually believe this catechism. So beware, the Jackie Smiths of the world have an ideological commitmernt to controlling that great evil: male heterosexuality.

Keep your eyes open for the next installment of petty-Stalinist ban-o-mania. It'll be fun to watch.

[Steven Foster]

@World of Warcraft

Haha, that made me laugh. Which I suppose is a form of gratification.

Uh oh...

[Pantelis]

@SID

SID old boy,

It is an undeniable fact that your views on this law differ substantialy from the views of the rest of the people who have posted in this forum to voice their displeasure at it. Such blatantly deviant behaviour cannot be tolerated.

Furthermore not only are your views deviant from what is obviously the normal view in this forum but it has been deemed by a group of your peers to have caused harm and distress to numerous members of this forum; this being a very open forum we fear that this distress could affect just about anyone as there are absolutely no warnings posted anywhere on the register as to your deviant views and their publication here.

Regretebly there is no law currently in effect that could be used to bring you in front of a formal jury of your peers so that you can answer for these crimes; we are so very happy though to see that by passing the Extreme Porn Law, the United KINGDOM is proudbly paving the way for the introduction of laws that will punish deviant behaviour until there will come a time when ALL deviant behaviour will sieze and we will all live in complete peace and harmony without a shred of deviance to soil the uniformity and compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

@Uncle Sid

You're still a Dick.

[Graham Marsden]

@Sid

To quote Sir Terry Pratchett: Someone who goes to a Star Trek convention in a Star Trek Uniform and set of Spock ears is seen as a "nerd" or not "normal", whereas someone who wakes up from under their Manchester United duvet, drinks their coffee out of a Manchester United mug and goes out dressed in their Manchester United replica shirt is just a "dedicated fan".

You just want to define "normal" as "whatever I agree with" or "what people I like do" which, once again, is simply arrogant. And calling someone "sick" just because they do something you don't like is also arrogant and insulting. Paging Mr Pot and Mr Kettle-Black!

I don't consider this denying someone the right to hold an opinion, if you could actually *PROVE* that there was any "sickness" you might have a valid point, but since you don't, no.

I am pleased to hear you are "technically literate" but if you think this law will do *anything* to stop these images appearing on your computer than you *really* haven't understood it!

This law criminalises you for *having* them on your computer! This law says that if in someone else's opinion *you* deliberately downloaded those images or didn't delete them immediately and beyond *your* ability to retrieve, then *YOU* are guilty of a criminal offence! It will then be up to *YOU* to prove your innocence! Isn't that a wonderful thing...??

And just because these images are frequently "linked" (usually by the tabloid media or those who have an anti-porn agenda to push) to people who commit crimes is not proof. I could probably claim that virtually all of those who had committed these crimes had also drunk alcohol, would you therefore accept that there was a "link" between alcohol and such crimes? No, of course not. Yet because this spurious link has been created in the minds of the public (the rule of the mob), it seems you're willing to believe it.

If you want to do some research, try looking at the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who examined the effects of the availability of pornography (including so-called "extreme pornography") on sex crimes in the USA and Japan and concluded: "It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes".

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.html

Why should the sex industry *not* be permitted to advertise? In any case, that is utterly irrelevant to this law, which has been created by a bunch of narrow-minded prudes who consider that it is "abhorrent" or "deviant" or "not normal" (sound familiar?!) and that we, the general public, cannot be trusted to look at it in case we do something nasty, so the Nanny State is going to lock us up if we look at it.

I don't care if anyone is "in the majority or not", Rights are there to protect EVERYONE, not just you and those who behave like you, but all of the people. Freedom of Expression doesn't just mean the Right to say things or look at things that Uncle Sid and friends enjoy and don't think are dangerous.

I do blame the politicians (who are often only interested in grabbing headlines) and the general public (who believe the tabloid media's scare story) and I also blame people like *YOU* who can't accept that others have rights too.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an easy solution to this problem

If they can't exactly explain what an acceptable picture is, then surely the government should provide an email address where everyone can send their photos for approval. If a photo is found to be objectionable, we can then delete it without consequence, but naturally we should be granted immunity to prosecution while we wait for our replies.

Of course we can get the ball rolling right away on this. If your local MP voted for this new law, just send him every single photo or picture you think might be a bit dodgy. They'll probably need some assistance deciding what seems objectionable, so a quick message to the police detailing the types of photos and pictures your MPs now have in their inboxes would be a great way to help them out.

Problem sorted.

[Jason DePriest]

Hello, Uncle Sid

@our lovely Uncle Sid

"I'm calling the desire to view these pictures as 'sick' because that is the viewpoint I hold, I realise that viewpoint is different to others, but does that make it less valid?"

A valid viewpoint is quite different from making something illegal. I believe there is a God. Some people believe there is no God. Which one should be made illegal since both ideas can't be correct? God forbid, we start bringing in things like Hinduism where a plethora of gods exist. Which ones should be sanctioned, if any? Which viewpoint matters? Which ones are sick and which ones are normal?

"I can't answer that for you, I'm not moralizing on what others wish to get up to in their own lives, the subject is the possession of pictures of "Necrophilia, Bestiality etc...""

Genuine necrophilia is already illegal. I'm in the US and we'd call that "abuse of a corpse." I don't know what Britain calls it. However, simulated necrophilia (a pale person lying very still) is completely legal when between two consenting adults of age.

Bestiality is also illegal in the states. I imagine the furry community would be devastated if viewing simulated bestiality was someone illegal. If it is an anthropomorphic cat yiffing with an anthropomorphic wolf, is it still bestiality?

What about drawings of acts that would be illegal? If I drew two stick figures and said "this one is raping that one" but it really just looked like some random lines, would that be illegal to own?

"As I've stated, I have no issue with what you get up to in your private life."

Ah, but you *do* have problems with what people do in their private life if you find their behavior sick enough to require a law forbidding it. You contradict yourself.

"I believe thats 'sick', you consider my view as arrogant, I don't. If others wish to insult me for that, then that displays their own intolerance, not mine."

You are seen as arrogant because you make no effort to see this from any point of view but your own. I can easily understand your view point. I don't want to look at "extreme porn". I tried once, following links from an article about "this is what will be illegal" and it actually made me feel physically ill.

So what? Should that make it illegal for some other person to print out a picture of it? Certainly not.

Maggots also make me ill. I wish we really could outlaw those. Ugh.

"I'm simply making the same statement most people would in the same situation."

Clearly you aren't making the same statement most people would be making since nobody else on this forum seems to agree with you.

"Now, if you take exception to the use of that word, doesn't that display a teensy weensy bit of an inability to allow others their opinion?"

One man's opinion should not be every man's law.

"I am technically literate, I take all the precautions I can to ensure that I and my family can surf the internet without being subjected to these pictures. however, even with all these precautions, I still find myself inadvertently, from time to time, coming across them."

How's that? I take very few precautions and have never found myself inadvertantly looking at porn, extreme or otherwise. I have well tuned spam filters, ad and flash blockers in my browser, and run no-script. I see exactly what I expect to see.

"Unfortunately there are a lot of people (yes, including children) who do not understand the danger of clicking a harmless looking link (or even one designed for the curious), and being subjected to a barrage of 'Extreme' porn. They normally do not have the technical savvy to make it stop. I know, I have had to wipe this crap off a lot of computers in my time."

No-script + Adblock Plus + Flashblock + Firekeeper would stop a great deal of that. There are some sites that provide PAC files you can use to black hole porn sites. There are some DNS providers that will black hole porn sites, too.

"The majority of internet users are not surfing for 'Extreme' porn (despite Michaels belief ~ you're really 'not' in the majority son), The majority want to be able to use the internet, without having to install lots of programs to make their surfing 'safer'."

If someone isn't willing to take control of their Internet experience, then they should have no expectation of being protected from malicious and salacious content. If there isn't someone coaching them on the dangers of the Internet, they need to stay off. Porn is the least of their worries what with worms infecting 15 million PCs, click-jacking, phishing, etc.

"So, We have the 'rights' of a small minority of the population, as opposed to the 'rights' of a majority of the population, now where do you think the politicians will look for the votes?"

I don't know how it works in Britain, but politicians are *supposed* to look out for every single person, especially those who are marginalized.

"Don't blame the Politicians or the general public, blame the people who thought the likes of "Goatse" was funny."

Goatse is funny, but only if you "rick roll" someone with it. It's pretty disgusting and shameful taken on its own.

"yours

Uncle Sid."

Thanks, Sid, for continuing to put up with everyone on this forum.

[Simon Guerrero]

Never mind evidence eliminator

My colleague "Rees Boy" says he stores all his extreme pr0n as "Magic Eye" images, because hardly anyone can see them.

The problem I see is that if he comes to court, nobody will want to admit they can't see it, so he's done for either way.

Serve him right for beating his meat over Sarah Palin being horribly abused by an angry moose.

Paris because he's probably got a few of her too.

[Simon Guerrero]

@SID

"however, even with all these precautions, I still find myself inadvertently, from time to time, coming across them."

lol

[Pete "oranges" B.]

Random @Sid

"This is all very good advice, but wouldn't it be better just not to down load sick images from malware infested porn sites in the first place?"

Yes it probably would be safer. On the other hand, I suspect that this new state of affairs really adds something playing at Hackers Vs. Spooks, since there is now some real (if small in many cases) risk to someone breaking your (massively over-engineered) encryption scheme.

OK, OK, that was said in jest. Seriously though, if one good thing comes out of this whole mess, it is that (non-cryptogeek) people may start taking serious measures to ensure their communications and stored information are secure from government observation, and thus lead to a somewhat freer society (not government, but society).

I do, however, have the most delightful image of some terribly disappointed government types spending hours cracking a highly encrypted file, based on their own assumption that to be so hidden it must be of an criminal nature, only to discover a certain music video, staring a certain Mr. Rick Astley.

Mines the one with the encrypted PDA full of grocery lists in the secret pocket.

[Anonymous Coward]

Streaming Sites ?

Was just wondering if sites like youporn or pornotube where you can stream pornographic videos would leave anything on your hard drive that could be recovered and used as evidence against you, does anybody know ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then cross your fingers, and pray"

Maybe you should have prayed first before watching the porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans are irrational

I just read 127 the comments above and still cannot grasp they huge interest in the topic. I wish a professor in law history and a social psychologist could shed some light here.

Humans are mimetic animals. No matter how educated or reasonable they are, subconsciously they will want to identify, imitate, fantasize, enacting or own whatever is depicted as a picture or a movie or art in general. If you like car, perfume, jewelry, shoes, PCs, gadget etc. advertisements, this means that you want one (in some cases you would even steal or kill in order to get one).

Keeping pictures of Hawaii in your PC means that you want to visit Hawaii. Keeping schematics of atomic bombs means that you want to destroy the commies or that you wish you could design a better one. Keeping nude/pr0n/kp/BDSM pictures represents your deep desire is to possess/shag/imitate the individuals depicted. Your first reaction is that "I like to watch and have a collection of those, but it would never ever cross my mind to do such things".

Are you sure you are normal? Does the state have any guarantee you are normal? Do I have a guarantee that my kids are safe from YOU?

Here's my line of thought: The primary function of imagery (and art in general) is magic. The pics in your PC's drive are no different from our ancestors' cave paintings of buffaloes being hunted down and killed.

Law, and to a certain extent, ethics, are timeless. What has worked for thousands of years will work now too. You cannot guarantee to the state - any state - that you will not repeat what is depicted and that you whatsoever have no such intents. Also, you cannot guarantee to the state that your children will not ever accidentally discover your artsy image bank and think it's perfectly ok since their daddy likes them. Also you cannot guarantee to the state that you will not sell them and thus propagate the disease. And finally, you cannot guarantee that you will not think "this is an easy money source" and attempt to produce them yourself at your basement.

The constitution of your country does not make such agreements with you - and even if such "contracts of good will and behaviour" were established, the state would have no guarantee that you'd actually keep them. Threatening/frightening/punishing simply does not work.

The question is, should there or should there not be laws addressing the ape-like human instincts? If the laws against theft, assault, violation, murder are ok with you, don't you think that there should be some kind of law regarding images (and art in general)?. Can you propose what kind of images and in which contexts should be legal and which not?

Finally, can or should an image that you would not possibly dare to show to your (adult or non-adult) son or daughter be legal and reside on your hard disk?

Paris, because her pictures are the axis of all evil - when she's dressed we'd kill to get her nude, when she's naked, we'd kill to dress her up again.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Humans are irrational

No, it's just you.

Are you just plain thick, sick in the head, or both?