Lords take revenge on revenge porn publishers

The House of Lords has agreed new legislation making “revenge porn” a criminal offence in England and Wales, punishable by up to two years in prison. The UK's upper parliamentary house voted unanimously late Monday night to accept the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill making its way through Parliament, which …

[Anonymous Coward]

Please would you use the real names of these characters who get a kick out of calling themselves 'Lord' or 'Baroness' such and such, this is the 21st century, not the Plantagenet era. Thank you.

[frank ly]

There are many people called Jonathan Marks, but there is only one Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. A similar situation applies to Baroness (Sarah) Brinton. At least this way we know exactly who the article is about and what their 'job' is, no matter how (un)deserving anyone may feel they are of that 'job'.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Speaking in the Lords debate on the amendment, Liberal Democrat Jonathan Marks, one of the peers who proposed the amendment, said the “thoroughly nasty behaviour” of publishing private photographs online had become all too common."

[CheesyTheClown]

Agreed

I've been calling myself Lord Darren for several years now and I have documents from respectable standardization committees validating my title as such. I also have students who refer to me as Lord Darren. My children when they want something refer to me "Lord Master Commander of the Universe".

As such it becomes much easier for people to more properly identify me as opposed to others.

[James O'Shea]

They _are_ using the 'real names'. 'Baroness' is a title, not a name. Brinton is actually her name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Brinton,_Baroness_Brinton. 'Lord' is a title. Marks is actually his name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Marks,_Baron_Marks_of_Henley-on-Thames

And I really find it funny that someone who declines to use their real name is making a fuss about using 'real names'.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And I really find it funny that someone who declines to use their real name is making a fuss about using 'real names'."

OK, I'll but the idea that using a comedy title doesn't matter.

How about the idea that the "house of lords" is a simply a posh, taxpayer funded club for placemen of whatever revolting prime minister nominated them for a peerage? And that as a wholly unelected bunch of tossers, many openly affiliated to the political party that sponsored them, they shouldn't be involved in any shape or form in law-making?

Personally I'd fire all the "new" lords, reinstate the old hereditary peers (for reasons that will become obvious below), strip their right to do anything meaningful with legislation whilst keeping them in the palace of Westminster, and then I'd sell membership (along with a non-hereditary title) as the world's most expensive club. As they'd have no power, I'd happily take the money of every c*nt of an Australian publishing tycoon, Russian criminal oligarch, African dictator, Chinese noveau-riche billionaire, Indian chewing-gum magnate, and the rest. I reckon that you could easily sell 200 seats at something like £100m a year each (there's around 2,000 billionaires globally, they're not going to miss small change like £100m a year). The resulting £20bn income would go a good way to reducing the government's borrowing, and the lords would be no less of a waste of space than they are at the moment.

What's not to like?

[Phil O'Sophical]

Having two elected houses is pointless, I agree, but a second house with powers of examination and question, and suitably-limited control, is a useful failsafe for the "I'll say anything to get re-elected next time" gang in the Commons. Having membership of that second house based on other things, such as merit or heredity, isn't that unreasonable. It gives them reasons to look at laws differently, and so to see different things. So what if they lean towards things which make sure the country will still be a reasonable place for their children to inherit, isn't that pretty much what we all want? It balances out those who want power for their own sake (yes, Mr. Bliar, I'm looking at you). The Lords is in many ways far less a waste of space than many of the 622 seats in the Commons.

[Trigonoceps occipitalis]

The UK has a bicameral system. Thus we need a second chamber. Just look at the lower depths of MSPs, MEPs, AMs and even MPs. If 6-800 new politicians elected or appointed by first past the post, regional list, AV or full blooded PV is the answer I think you're asking a very strange question.

How do you get the likes of Alan Sugar, Peter Inge, Robert Winston and Susan Greenfield to help run the country? They are not likely to offer themselves for election, nor brown-nose some temporarily powerful politician to get appointed to the Chamber of Place-men (Trading as Failed Politicos Inc). The system of Honours does the job and gets people with knowledge and time in a position of influence. There may may not be a better system.

Also remember that the only elected members of the House of Lords are the 80 or so hereditary lords elected by their peers.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do you get the likes of Alan Sugar, Peter Inge, Robert Winston and Susan Greenfield to help run the country? They are not likely to offer themselves for election, nor brown-nose some temporarily powerful politician to get appointed to the Chamber of Place-men (Trading as Failed Politicos Inc). The system of Honours does the job and gets people with knowledge and time in a position of influence. There may may not be a better system."

I note simply that you have stayed well away from Lord Two-Jags of Prescott, Lord Kinnock, Billingham etc etc all just stuffed shirts that accompished nothing more than suckling on the taxpayers tit all their lives.

[Trigonoceps occipitalis]

Trading as Failed Politicos Inc

I think my feelings on some in the Upper Chamber are clear.

[southpacificpom]

Selfie Serving

Wonder how many politicians have rude selfies that might be waiting to be exposed on the net?

I guess a law like this may help them sleep easier at night...

[Stuart 22]

I promise to bare all to the holder of my ...

Remind me of the average time spent in jail by the thieves who defrauded us of billions in the Libor scandal (to name but one)?

Seems the only way to get 'em behind bars in plant some dirty pictures of their beloved. But that's difficult because it will have all been nicely laundered.

[Anonymous Coward]

All very well...

But as has been pointed out, there is existing legislation which already covers this. The problem is that Plod does nothing about it, far too often we hear of cases where Plod just say "sorry, love, nothing we can do". In other words, they're just too lazy/incompetent to do anything about it.

So what hope do we have that this new law will make any difference?

[John G Imrie]

Re: All very well...

Laws aren't for doing, they are for making. Once you have made a law you can say you have solved the problem.

[Thorne]

Re: All very well...

Still a total waste of time.

"You see your Honour, I caught this nasty bit of malware and some hacker stole the pictures of my ex and posted them skankyhos.com therefore I am completely innocent and a victim in this crime also"

[Anonymous Coward]

@A.N.Other

So what hope do we have that this new law will make any difference?

It's simple really, the politicians simply use a very advanced plan of action which basically guarantees success. Rumour has it that even large corporations seem to apply this business model with great success:

• Create a new law to ban $unwanted_public_behavior
• ???
• Profit!

The worst part of it all is that it actually seems to be true. And I'm somewhat shocked to learn that this isn't a problem which only occurs in my country.

I call it "taking the approach with the least resistance". Its relatively easy to make a law; but enforcing said law, that's going to be the real challenge. A challenge which more and more government officials seem to be either overlooking or completely ignoring.

[LucreLout]

Re: All very well...

The problem is that Plod does nothing about it

The problem is there is nothing they can do. Pick any TOR hosted revenge smut site and see if you can identify where it's actually being hosted such that you could take it down, or identify it's owner. Good luck.

So what hope do we have that this new law will make any difference?

It'll make no difference at all. Which is a genuine shame, because it's a disgraceful way to behave. I'm not sure whom I dislike more, the people posting such pictures, or the guy hosting them and making the ad-revenue from it.

Sadly, the internet is a bit like Whack-A-Mole for this stuff. If the ladies in question ever did succeed in getting a site taken down, a mirror of the content will simply appear elsewhere. Unfortunately people rarely stop to consider the harm they do others before they act, and until that changes, all the laws in the world won't make a difference.

[John H Woods]

Re: All very well...

"The problem is there is nothing they can do"

Not whack-a-mole against the sites, true. But presumably at least some of the ladies (for it is usually they) remember which partner took / possessed the pictures that have been published? If the police followed up a number of these cases they'd find at least one they could prosecute ... and a well publicised successful conviction may be a more effective deterrent than another new unenforced law.

[Alan Brown]

Re: All very well...

"If the ladies in question ever did succeed in getting a site taken down, a mirror of the content will simply appear elsewhere."

Which is why there needs to be a seriously credible threat of time in pokey for the people who published it - or provided it to the publisher.

[Pen-y-gors]

Typical over-reaction

The offence is really not very nice, but the penalty is completely over the top. Prison should be reserved for violent criminals and incorrigible repeat offenders. Our politicians compete to see who can take revenge on the most criminals, despite our prisons being over-crowded, under-staffed and totally unfit for purpose (unless the purpose is to turn minor criminals into major criminals). To be honest I'm amazed that some MPs haven't started suggesting that Sharia punishments may not be a bad thing.

We need an upheaval in our 'justice' system - change to restitution rather than retribution. Posting revenge porn online is not nice, neither is posting rape threats on Twitter, but they could be addressed far better by a few hundred hours of community service rather than banging up the perps for a couple of years where they'll learn how to take real physical revenge on their targets.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Typical over-reaction

Upvoted sir, nicely said.

Internet 'crime' = new. New = newsworthy. Newsworthy = votes. I know we dont vote for lords (dont get me started on that one) but they are party drones at the end of the day, and they want votes for the chaps in 'the other place'.

It's like I always say : Good old fashioned violent / nonce crime that's been around for millenia is not worthy of air time these days. They need to be seen to be 'tackling' the internet, cos the boomers who's votes they are after dont understand it, and therefore fear it. Whether or not these new laws actually do anything or not? Irrelevent. They measure success in activity, rather than results.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Typical over-reaction

Nothing to do with justice or revenge. It is simply a ploy to see who can appease the most wimmenz..

[JP19]

Re: Typical over-reaction

I can just cut an paste my post from the 2 years for trolls article:-

It used to be taking offence on behalf of someone else was enough to (dishonestly) demonstrate you were more caring, noble, and deserving of votes than the offender and anyone taking less offence than you.

Now the players have decided that they can (dishonestly) demonstrate they are even more caring, noble and deserving of votes by further demonizing the offender to the extent that they need to be locked up.

Making a fuss about and dealing vicious punishment for something that is just not very nice scores you more politically correct game play points than the same level of fuss and punishment for something which is quite nasty.

Escalation of the stakes in political correct game play will continue until the (hopefully) sensible majority make it clear they consider the players to be dishonest slimeballs, not caring, noble, and worthy of votes.

[LucreLout]

Re: Typical over-reaction

could be addressed far better by a few hundred hours of community service

Totally inadequate I'm afraid.

I'm a guy. Pretty well any woman that ever wanted to see me naked did so in my 20s. The rest of the world wasn't interested then and certainly wouldn't be interested now. However, I'd be haunted by any such images being released for the rest of my professional career. My children could be bullied or teased at school because of it. Were I famous, their children too may be singled out.

A few hundred hours is less than many people already work for charity for free. Its wholly insufficient to deter such image releases, and it's just not adequate as a punishment. The images are out there forever, so the criminal offence should be registered forever, and that requires a sentence greater than several years to achieve due to successive RoO acts.

[Lamont Cranston]

Re: Totally inadequate

Unless you represent a danger to yourself or others, prison should not be required for your rehabilitation (unless it's the only way to ensure that you attend for it). Community service should be the preferred option in most cases.

[LucreLout]

Re: Totally inadequate

Unless you represent a danger to yourself or others, prison should not be required for your rehabilitation

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is where lefty thinking disappears up its own arse.

Crime first. Then punishment. Then rehabilitation. You can't just skip the punishment thing without leading to a significant rise in vigilantism - a persistent lack of punishment will lead to a rise in retribution. No matter how hard you wish it, rehabilitation is a pipedream for almost any career criminal (those with more than 3 offences to their name).

If you actually believe that picking up a bit of litter or painting the odd fence will stop a criminal with 20+ convictions to their name (and $deity only knows how many undetected crimes), then you will quite literally believe anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Totally inadequate

I used to feel much the same as you but then I looked hard at recidivism rates (the rate at which criminals reoffend). These can be as high as 70% for robbery in the UK and US. So with the existing system all you're doing is bouncing these men (they're overwhelmingly men) in to jail, where they serve their time (or more likely half of it) and are back out without any mechanism for ending reoffending. Look at Denmark for a good example - it has a prison population a tenth that of the US (when adjusted for population size) and its recidivism rate is half that of the US.

I'm not suggesting that we could import the Danish system wholesale and that it would work in the same way. Every country is different. However I think that the value of the Danish system is that it shows that spending more money on justice and particularly on rehabilitation over a longer period of time offers both financial benefits and social benefits.

After all, what is the purpose of the justice system if it isn't to rehabilitate?

[LucreLout]

Re: Totally inadequate

"I used to feel much the same as you but then I looked hard at recidivism rates"

A three strikes and you're out system would handle that in no time at all. 3 crimes, any 3, and you get to stay in jail until you go into the box and the box goes into the hole. Recidivism would be virtually zero, once you get past the first generation of old men locked up forever for a 3rd assault, burglary, or car theft.

"After all, what is the purpose of the justice system if it isn't to rehabilitate?"

To punish. Its purpose is to punish. The whole criminal justice system was setup to stop people sending the boys round to obtain natural justice. Victims don't want their offender rehabilitated until after they have been punished. Rehab is about altering the future, where as jail is about paying for the past. If victims have no confidence in the criminal justice system, they'll simply resort to obtaining justice for themselves.

I used to think like you. Then I woke up in hospital following a gang robbery. Then I got to watch the CPS bungle the case, and the gangleader waltz out of court with another bit of paper in his file and a wide smile on his face. Now I don't report crime to the authorities, at best it is pointless.

[teebie]

Re: Totally inadequate

Three strikes gets more people killed - if someone has been jailed twice burglary, and are offending again when the owner comes home they have 2 choices - give up and get jailed for life for burglary, or kill the owner and maybe get away with it.

I also think any system that can send someone to jail for life for failing to pay their TV license is intrinsically wrong.

(You seem to mean a total life sentence - the rest of you life behind bars, rather than a minimum term and life on license)

The prupose of a justice system is to reduce crime - if someone robbed me I'd want them punished, but I would much rather they didn't rob me in the first place.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Totally inadequate

"A three strikes and you're out system would handle that in no time at all"

Because that's worked so very well in the USA that they've repealed it most places due to the laws of unintended consequences.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Totally inadequate

"No matter how hard you wish it, rehabilitation is a pipedream for almost any career criminal (those with more than 3 offences to their name)."

Yup. Repeat offenders should go to jail, and for a good stretch. But first time offenders shouldn't unless their crime is serious. One that leaps to mind is Chris Huhne (the lib dem minister). He never came across particularly well, but he actually did time for what was basically a speeding offence. There is no way anyone else can persuade me that was a good use of a cell in Wandsworth. Community service should be the norm for non-violent first offences. Repeat offenders, go directly to jail, without collecting their £200.

[John H Woods]

Re: Totally inadequate

Hadvar: "Chris Huhne ... actually did time for what was basically a speeding offence"

No, he was found guilty of perverting the course of justice; I would contend that is a good deal more serious than speeding (except where the speeding is serious enough to be another offence), although it remains, as you say, a non violent first offence.

[Lamont Cranston]

Re: disappearing up my own arse

Locking people up isn't primarily about punishment, it's about protecting society from those that wish to do it harm (and with the intent that they can be rehabilitated)). It's also absurdly expensive, and so would be best used only when absolutely required.

And no, I don't believe that a bit of litter picking is an appropriate response to a career criminal, but nor do I think that banging him up and forgetting about him is the answer. Oh, I know, let's just lop his hands off - that'll put an end to his schemes.

[Werner McGoole]

Swings & roundabouts

I guess this will just lead to the alternative of allowing your nudie pics to be posted on the internet by your lover. Then, when you get jilted, you claim you never gave permission.

[James 139]

Re: Swings & roundabouts

And, of course, theres bound to be plenty of reverse-revenge too.

You break up, your ex posts pictures of themselves, from an account pretending to be you, because theyre an insane psycho/bunny-boiler.

[gnasher729]

Re: Swings & roundabouts

That idea comes up all the time; something becomes criminal, so someone might try to frame someone for the crime. There are a few problems with this:

One, most criminals get away with it because nobody knows who they are and they cannot be found. With this particular crime, it's obvious from the start who did it, which makes it a stupid idea.

Two, police officers are not entirely stupid and usually are reasonably good judges of character. So when they talk to the person who has been framed, they just _might_ figure out that something dodgy is going on. And when they examine the person's computer, which they will, they _might_ just figure out that this is not the place where the pictures come from. And then they will try to find out why.

Because three, if there is one thing that cops and judges hate is if someone tries to manipulate them, and "perverting the course of justice" doesn't have a maximum sentence of two years.

[LucreLout]

Re: Swings & roundabouts

I'm wondering how they'll actually identify who posted them.

Were the images in the ex's posession? Ok, but that doesn't mean they weren't copied or leaked (iCloud!)

So lets say you want to do this to an ex (in my view you'd have to have seriious mental health issues), you just ping them over to a buddy on a USB or other non-networked storage device, and have them upload through their favourite anonymising toolset. Or simply wait until abroad and upload from there yourself.

Your ex may not become aware of the images for a long time. Audit trails will decay. And lets face it, how detailed do you think the web logs will be from a backpacker hostel in Thailand, two years after the fact? Assuming the police can get co-operation from the relevant authorities.

Having the new law will be nice for lawyers, but I just don't see it affecting behavioural change, other than to make more people take privacy precautions.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Swings & roundabouts

"And lets face it, how detailed do you think the web logs will be from a backpacker hostel in Thailand, two years after the fact? "

Revenge porn tends to be posted within days/weeks of a breakup.

Someone posting stuff several years afterwards is someone who is seriously unhinged and needing a major head-reading session or three. Usually they'll have already brought themselves to the attention of the fuzz with such antics and a posting of this kind of thing would constitute aggravated stalking which carries penalties a whole lot more severe than a few weeks weeding public flowerbeds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Delete the bitch.

It's over quicker and you get to be better off without her.

Post those selfies and you never get to get over it.

[Shaha Alam]

prosecution in court should be interesting...

prosecution: madam, can you please identify your vagina among exhibits a, b, c and d.

witness: c. c is my vagina

prosecution: are you sure?

witness: yes, i think.

prosecution: you think? so you are not sure?

witness: no, i'm sure. yes, c is my vagina.

* gasps from the gallery *

defence: madam, what if i told you that exhibit c has been photoshopped. Yes, it has been shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

[Stevie]

Bah!

Good luck getting a prosectution when the "my phone was hacked" defense is used.

So, just another way of en-walleting lawyers, then.

[madick]

Out of proportion and completely pointless?

Mug someone for their phone - 4 weeks community service.

Steal a photo from a phone - 2 years in prison.

Apart from that, this new law is pointless - unless the full might of GCHQ is used by the prosecution, it will not be possible to prove who upload the photo. (Standard defence: "I didn't send it. It must have been hacked from my i-cloud account.")

The new law is also unnecessary - the Communications Act 2003, Section 127

Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

[Arachnoid]

So the Politicians have turned into Americans now

They consider that they rule the internet and all its content.Much like the recent UK threat to prosecute both on-line trolling and downloading of child abuse images this horse wont even leave the starting gates before the Met Police say they dont have the resources to cope with the consequences of the law.

The Politicians will say they will provide extra finances, the next election will take place and the laws will recede into the ambiguity of lawyers fees.

[Primus Secundus Tertius]

Common lawmakers

I object to the phrase, " lawmakers in the House of Commons", used as El Reg notes that the proposed law must be endorsed in another place.

All MPs are equal, there is no special category of "lawmaker"; nor, so we are told, are there lawmakers elsewhere such as at Buckingham Palace or in the Security Services. The phrase should be replaced by "the House of Commons".

Once upon a time there were special lords, the law lords, who were the ones who decided law cases. Although some MPs, such as Privy Councillors, are more equal than others: they are called sooner to speak in debates.

[nsld]

I looked at the Telegraph news story

And apparently Hannah Thompson was in a relationship with someone who ran a blog of a sexual nature and discovered pictures from when she was 18 etc etc.

That doesnt sound like the traditional approach to revenge porn and reads to me more like regret porn.

And as we know the interwebs are forever so I guess the only solution is not to make porn if you dont want to risk others seeing it.

[waldo kitty]

Re: I looked at the Telegraph news story

is this the same Hannah Thompson that accused Lembit Opik ??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545603/Lembit-Opik-called-Cinderella-tried-kiss-Schoolgirl-activists-claims-heap-embarrassment-Lib-Dems.html

[Crazy Operations Guy]

Might be a good way for the NSA/GCHQ to get back into our good graces

Since they have the capabilities, I would like to see them break into these sites, and replace each entry with a picture and personal details of the person that posted the images. Turn the whole website into a directory of "Terrible people that under no circumstances should you ever trust"

[Old Handle]

While it's a legitimate problem, I'd really like to hear how they define it. It would be very easy to write this in a way that covers non-malicious actions. If someone sends you an explicit selfie and you share without permission, that's inconsiderate and uncouth, but it doesn't on its own mean you're trying to get revenge. You might just think it's a nice picture.

[Adam 52]

Not about revenge porn

What none of the journalism on this issue seems to mention is if you actually read the text, the ammendment doesn't actually ban revenge porn. It bans any "private sexual" image that might offend the model. So all those glamour models and celebrities (and politicians) who posed for dodgey shots or have been caught with their pants down can now call for the publisher to be prosecuted.

And on the subject of names - check out the other ammendments banning pseudonyns.

[Busby]

Re: Not about revenge porn

"And on the subject of names - check out the other ammendments banning pseudonyns."

Since that particular piece of legislation is now hurting the mumsnet lot expect call me Dave to repeal it faster than they can cash an oligarch's cheque.

By they I do of course mean all three main UK parties.

[chris121254]

Re: Not about revenge porn

there are no "amendments" like that I can find so he may be lying :/

[Adam 52]

Re: Not about revenge porn

Or maybe you're not looking hard enough?

(1)     A person is guilty of an offence if, knowingly and without

reasonable cause, he uses a means of identification of another

person or a fictitious person.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not about revenge porn

yet how is that banning pseudonyns for everyone? if you think about it you can get arrested for a lot of things that involves pseudonyns? also it does not mean there going to find that person, just saying

[chris121254]

Re: Not about revenge porn

we are not a oligarchy I don't think

[chris121254]

Re: Not about revenge porn

there no ammendments banning pseudonyns what are you talking about? also private sexual image IS revenge porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not about revenge porn

strange this is the first time you have commented on Register in 3 years?

[sisk]

Personally I'm of the opinion that revenge porn should be considered a serious offense. It is no better than someone posting hidden cameras in a locker room.