‘Insufficient evidence’ makes Brit cops drop revenge porn probes Many of the 175 cases of revenge porn offences investigated by UK police since a change of the law since April were dropped because of insufficient evidence, suggesting that victims are too frightened. Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 became law in April in an attempt to stem the rising tide of revenge …
Just imagine this:
GF sends text to BF: You suck, im breaking up with you
BF: Really?? You silly b****
GF: yeah whatever sad loser...
Sometimes later...
Text send to ex GF from some acquaintance: OMG, OMG!!! Is that your arse on [insert social media of your choice]?
ex GF panicked reports incident to police
PC: Let's see (going thru series of pics)... What's that thing up... your crack?!... Is that a... no,can't be, err sorry...
exGF (embarrased): Come to think, I thought the girl looked [on the pics] like me, but really it's not me... Im gonna go now?!
PC: Ok case dropped then
This is how it happens
Or it is proving difficult to pin the case on the ex. It's so easy to get a reasonably anonymous Internet connection or SIM. So they BiB can see the picture out there, they can talk to the website, assuming they are in the right jurisdiction, get the IP address where the pics come from, go to the ISP/mobe company. And then what? They were posted from Joe's Cafe free WiFi a couple of hundred miles from where the ex lives? Now what are they supposed to do?
> This is how it happens
True, but if the stick of celery was a single purchase, it may still have the barcode on it and its provenance may then traced, which could be used to ascertain an approximate timeframe within which said inappropriate product placement may have occurred. And I even said all that without using the word "analysis".
> ascertain an approximate timeframe within which said inappropriate product placement may have occurred
Even knowing the timeframe won't help with evidence of the crime, the crime was the posting of the pics not the unnatural act with a vegetable. So you know when the picture was taken, you might be able to workout which camera/phone was used, but you can't demonstrate whether the ex posted the pics, whether the pics were posted by the new SO coz the victim is now reluctant to indulge in such acts and is therefore jealous, whether the victim posted the pics to implicate the ex or whether one of the above had their phone copied by a mate down the pub, the BOFH at work, some support guy at the phone shop, some officer at the airport, some hacker who's infected the phone or NSA/GCHQ/add your own pet hate here.
Before the ex can be prosecuted the these other possibilities need to be disproved.
Well except for the last one, if the Security Service has decided to implicate the ex then they are F*CHED.
It could indeed be that the accused is not guilty. Though I suspect it'll come down to the wording of the law - the CPS view intent as a very difficult thing to prove.
CPS: Did you post these pictures?
Scrote: Yep, but I didn't intend to cause distress like, I thought she'd be totes amazeballs init.
CPS: Ok, we'll file this under NFA and head home early.
Victim: Sorry, what the feck just happened?
Actually I think I am far more disturbed by the idea that someone took a remark about a label on a stick of celery up someone's wherever as being an even remotely serious possibility for forensic photo investigation. And without spotting that a single stick of celery will not have a label on it, plus a barcode in itself isn't going to tell you anything about the date in any case, and more to the point WTF?
Put forward a competing CSI-pseudo-science theory about leaf shape and tracing the grower, or even something about identifying the pattern on the socks or if the written icing on the slice of cake is part of 'happy birthday' or 'april fool', and that would make far more sense because we already know how to pick apart the data from a jpeg, we know how to get log files off a web server, (and how often is someone going to bother with sanitising a pic and then using Tor for a whoopee-gram sneakily pinched off a mate's phone?
Most of the pictures floating round still have complete EXIF data unless specifically overwritten by the photo editor of choice, so why not use that? If it is legit information (including, apparently, some device unique data), then it can obviously point to the exact device with which the picture was taken. Assuming of course that the data is not maliciously altered, but it's simply impossible to know all these unique details of an unknown phone or camera.
It would definitely help sift out reverse-revenge porn:
- That scumbag of my ex-bf posted nudie snaps of me on the interweb!
- Could you take and upload a picture from your phone ma'am?
- But those pictures you are showing were made with your phone!?
Sigh... I meant a situation where the guy is innocent (as absurd as it sounds, men aren't always guilty!) and his ex-gf decided to make him miserable, post pics of herself and then try to implicate him.
How about I add something to the conversation:
- That's true, he used my phone to take my pics and then copied them to his phone.
- When did you say you broke up?
- September 20th.
- Timestamps in these pics say they were taken on October 5th.
And to the really daft: Oh, and look, there's a newspaper behind you clearly showing the date: October 5th.
Says Security consultant that probably wants a finger in some pie.
Not to belittle these offenses - the person doing it is a nasty piece of work - but if its 175 reported cases then even if we assume a couple of orders of magnitudes more going un-reported I would have thought that the Police have more urgent matters to deal with.
In other words - whats the point in passing a specific law for such a statistically small set of complaints - it smacks of knee-jerk politician-ing.
Rather than creating all these specific offenses cant they just create a generic offence of being an ARSE on the internet that covers this, cyber-libel, cyber stalking etc etc ? It would probably pay for itself in reduced FOI requests.
I understand the sentiment but beg to differ somewhat. Like rape, esp in older times, there is the risk that a crime where nothing much is done goes unreported because why report something like that if there is no enforcement and you risking embarassment?
Now, it is not rape, but there can be severe consequences - we've had several teen suicides in Canada. I'd go for a shortish prison term, massive financial damages proportionate to income, levied by garnishments, and highly publicized convictions to serve as deterrent.
Not throwing up hands because that's just gonna tell both the perps, and victims, there is little to fear, and hope, from justice. Which will not deter anything except the victim coming forward.
Websites should also be massively penalized if actively complicit.
Mostly, educate that almost 50% of folks that they are, very stupidly, putting themselves at risk. Do what you want, but never allow an electronic record of it.
Which is why handling this under Personal Data Protection principles would be more appropriate and more effective:
Personal data must be fairly collected for a declared purpose - intimate snaps would be assumed to be for enjoyment of the lovers involved
Personal data must be destroyed when the purpose has ended - when the relationship ends, the intimate photos must be destroyed
Appropriate security - keep them secure, no let-out for leaving unencrypted data lying around.
Photos taken for publication would be covered by an appropriate contract.
Or more importantly...
Many of the 175 cases of revenge porn offences investigated by UK police since a change of the law since April were dropped because of insufficient evidence, suggesting that victims are too frightened.
Rather than the victims being frightened or the police wanting to seize more power, maybe we could simply conclude that there wasn't enough actual evidence with which to begin. Better to start simple and work your way on from there, as the evidence dictates.
" were dropped because of insufficient evidence, suggesting that victims are too frightened."
I'm not sure how that suggests that the victims were too frightened? If they were dropped because of insufficient evidence that suggests to me that there was insufficient evidence. Now that may be because the police are crap at investigating cyber crime, it may be because the allegations were false, it may be because they were true but the evidence wouldn't be sufficient to secure a conviction.
Many possibilities but if the victim has already gone to the police over the first incident and then their Ex does something else to make them fearful that's "two or more incidents" i.e. harrassment. If you're fearful of your Ex and you are already in communications with the police, why not persue that so that you can get a fear-reducing restraining order?
If you're fearful of your Ex and you are already in communications with the police, why not persue that so that you can get a fear-reducing restraining order?
In the Uk, it seems that statistically, more assults are commited by people ignoring them than not.
By the time plod arrive, if ever, the victim is either so freaked out or injured /dead, they normally never want to press charges.
Unless evidence from CCTV or witnesses as such is available, it's heresay if the perp is no longer on the scene
"Now that may be because the police are crap at investigating cyber crime"
I think this is most likely the case. There can be few crimes easier to prove. The Jeremy Kyle caveman who indulge in this sort of thing wont be masking IP and using puppet accounts as another poster suggested.
Maybe screenshots arnt admissable in court?
> A guy doing the dirty gets bragging rights. Woman, not so much. Except for strategically placed cucumbers, perhaps.
There have been at least a couple of publicised cases where women have been prosecuted for posting pics of their ex's to cause embarrassment, so it seems that revenge porn is not just a male on female crime, as the saying goes, hell hath no fury etc...
Of course it could be that "man is a dickhead and doesn't something horrible to a woman" doesn't constitute news any more than the idea that the latest pontiff is a Catholic, where as "woman does porn attack on man" is more news worthy.
Oh, I don't doubt. But common sense will tell you that guys are less at risk of being ridiculized, at least in humdrum straight sex acts. Blackmail cases involving married folks, closets and pros aside.
The other bit I don't get is this lack of evidence. In many cases wouldn't forensics pick up picture traces on the ex's phone? Or computers? Also, if posted on FB or the like, there would need to be some initial linkage of even an anonymous account to the victim - posting "Sally is a slut and here are the pics" doesnt work so well if Sally's account and friends aren't connected to that post.
I am wondering if cops take this seriously enough. Debrief here in Canada, after a teen's rape and subsequent internet humiliation and suicide, showed a number of procedural mistakes. Among other things they failed to aggressively go after schoolmates reposting pics. Interview procedures were insensitive. There was a lot of hesitancy about a successful prosecution.
Look, let's not get hysterical about it, but this is a serious crime in possible victim impact and merits serious resources. Maybe now that the plods are off the Ecuadorian embassies, the $ can be repurposed. And in our case maybe savings is when our PM can stop making a big fuss about niqabs and losing cases about it.
Stole my wifes iPhone and managed to gain entry to it, quite obviously browsing the personal photos which we had shared. The nice thing about Apple (I use Android though) is that you can locate your phone, but more importantly delete whatever you like remotely. After that incident and finding the gentleman involved (I'll leave it to your imagination how well that went for him) we decided that sharing that sort of stuff was ultimately a bad idea.
However, if you know what modern culture is like most guys/ girls / transformers will send photos of themselves for "likes" or "wow you're gorgeous" replies. To complain that these will then be used against you is a bit, hollow IMHO. The simple solution is to keep your private life private.
If you allow someone to take photographs of you in embaressing positions/naked/ whatever then who is to blame?
If they took the photos without your permission then there are already adequate laws in place to deal with this and being in posession of the imagery is enough, i.e. very easy to proove/identify who is guilty.
If you knowing allowed someone to keep embaressing imagery of you then why should the rest of us have to pay for your stupidity.
I can not understand people saying this is as invasive as rape, rape is without consent and usually involves force/removal of pwer this on the otherhand is mostly people using IT inappropriately and unless they can proove the images were taken without their consent then not really anyone's fault but their own.
> If you allow someone to take photographs of you in embaressing positions/naked/ whatever then who is to blame?
Damn straight. And so what if someone has posted the positive results of your HIV test online? Whose stupid idea was it to have the test in the first place, eh?
Why who did you give your test results to? that was stupid wasn't it
If you do not wish information about you to be public then do not distribute it, if it is done without your consent then you already have the protection of the law.
This new law adds nothing but to try and say it is someone elses fault when clearly the "victim" was complicit.
I don't have HIV and there have never been any pictures of me naked coincidence?
The more posts I see about this law the more I come to believe that it was created purely for people who are a risk to themselves who would be better put somewhere where they would not be a danger to themselves or others.
We used to protect the most vulnernable members of our societies by not allowing them to mix with deviants or to compromise themselves now we make a unenforcable law instead and pretend that these victims are safe.
Clearly care in the community is letting the lunatics run the asylum
Some people want to have naked/saucy pictures of themselves, and possibly share them with someone else. They may however not want to have them shared with everyone.
I think they should be allowed to have the former without the latter if they wish.
If someone then forces the latter, against their will, then there is now a specific crime (even if not done in revenge - the revenge porn term is a bit missleading but I guess it gets the message accross).
I have very few naked pictures of myself, but they way I see it, just because I have them it doesn't entitle someone else to take them or share them. I feel the same way about my car.
An even better/accurate example is information that my employer entrusts to me in my job - some of it is very sensitive stuff (no nude pictures though), and it is in my contract that I am not allowed to pass the information on to other people, apart from those that my employer says its ok to share with.
If I did share my employers sensitive information on facebook (or snapchat, whatever) then I don't think the arguement that if they didn't want it on facebook they shouldn't have given me the info in the first place would get me very far. Nor do I think it would be my employers fault for trusting me, as I did promise them that I wouldn't share their information any further than they wanted.
Well said, sir. Sick to death of these self-absorbed eejits blaming the victims every time this subject comes up.
Here are some examples for the morons to think about.
Disabled people who can't perform sex the same way everyone else can and have to come up with workarounds, which may sometimes involve pictures.
Soldiers on active duty, away from their spouses for months or years at a time, whose spouses may provide them with pictures to help them through the long-term absence. Same for oil rig workers, Antarctic researchers, wildlife photographers, etc.
People having therapy to overcome intimacy problems.
It's not clear to me that any of the above are stupid bastards who deserve public humiliation.
How about you accept that either you have to be with your sexual partner for them to see you naked or avoid making your home pron identifible as you.
If you are sending an image of yourself showing something embaressing then do not have your face or personal information in the photo. After all if it is a sexual picture then the recipient isnt going to be looking at your face
There fixed it for you and all without having to make a new law (at the taxpayer's expense) because you are too credulous to be allowed control of your own life.
If you are being paid not to disclose company information then why do you not secure it rather than rely upon this stupid law to pass the blame to someone else. If they got it from you then you are to blame and deserved to be sacked for your stupidity
Many of the 175 cases of revenge porn offences investigated by UK police since a change of the law since April were dropped because of insufficient evidence, suggesting that they were dropped because of insufficient evidence.
There, FTFY. There's not an ounce of evidence that this is due to victims being too frightened, that's a complete non-sequitur.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
