Lords try shoehorning law against revenge porn into justice bill

Punisment to fit the crime

Watch as the redit crowd get to denigrate a picture of the perpetrators private bits.

I can see this backfiring.

Always trouble ahead when the crime is based on what the defendant 'believes.' Rather fuzzy and hard to prove.

An easier solution in my view would be societal change. Stop caring! The internet has plenty of boobs, yours are not special.

However

We are constantly being told that Govt's (especially ours in the UK it seems) are slipping extra clauses / amendments in on the quiet.

It usually seems to be yet another further encroachment on any freedoms we thought we had the day before

This amendment seems to have a pretty narrow focus so maybe not the worst thing to get passed?

This issue should have been tackled years ago. It is a form of attack and the only reason not to pass it is if it's going to be a mess like the dangerous dogs act and that would only be to give mp's time to come up with something effective.

If you want to prevent the possibility of having a naked photo of you on the Internet, then don't pose for it.

Good news

Presumably this means that all the serious crimes have been solved.

I thought whoever took the photo had the copyright, If you don't want to risk this don't let people do it in the first place.

The government seems to want everything to be dealt with like a business so this sort of thing is similar to liquidation of assets.

They keep saying they cannot do anything with copyright but they obviously can if they can do stuff like this.

1 year in jail for what essentially amounts to publishing photos without a model release form. Oh how reasonable and well thought out this law sounds.

Combine this with a nebulous definition of pornography and the potential for "collateral damage" is huge. Re-post some bikini pics of a friend-of-a-friend you font on facebook? Your nicked son. Girl friend eating a cadburys flake in the traditional manner, better be careful, if she leaves you your fucked.

etc etc.

There's an awful lot of ignorance around this. A model release form is only a requirement if the images are used for commercial purposes and the subject posed 'for a consideration'. That consideration could be as trivial as the photographer bought them a coffee/drink or provided a CD of the images.

What about when the subject posed willingly and was happy for the images to be shown then changes their mind?

The proposal is completely unworkable and will only add another stick with which to beat photographers.

An easier solution...

... DON'T send naked or pornographic pictures or videos in the first place!!!

What happens if the photo's are stolen?

encrypted chats

Try out Wickr, or something else like its Ilk. :)

quick google indicates kiss & tell and sex tape laws are a bit spotty, but as its plainly revenge, often posted to sites dedicated exclusively to revenge smut.

how about - article 8 human rights act, harrassment, breach of contract of confidentiality, defamation etc.

Hmmmm

I think the law in some form should be in place.

Which reminds me. If not passed, will people go around with contracts that state something like:

"On July 2 at 17:31:12 on Fleet Street in London, I Lindsey Lohan, knowingly posed nude for Justin Bieber. He may not post any pictures [or modifications there of] on the Internet, in an email, in a text message, on TV, in a book, in a newspaper, in a magazine or similar media without my knowledge."

Bieber's version: "I promise to do nothing - at any time - because I'm good at it."

Eye for an eye

Can't we just have a public website where the person who posted the material has to appear naked (no photoshop allowed) along with their full name and the town they live in? Oh and throw in a fine of £10K or something. A year in prison costs the tax payer a lot of money, can't we just do public humiliation instead as it's cheaper?

Personally, I'd like to see a requirement that you cannot post a photo of someone else online without their specific permission. Or at least a legal requirement that you must remove it is requested.

That should be enough to shut Facebook down.

if you let someone does it matter who take a pic of you in what ever form .. it becomes theres to do with as they will ..just because your loved up does not mean you have lost your mind .. you have excepted that there taking a pic ..

so just don't do it simple you have them take a pic or do your own prawn film .. at some point it's going on the net .. shit happens live with it ..

While I'm not completely opposed to some type of law on the subject, I think it needs to be focused on the revenge aspect. Suppose A hooks up with B and then posts an intimate picture taken during the encounter with the caption "Hottie I banged last night!". B may well be distressed by that, and A is almost certainly an asshole. But it's not revenge porn. What's missing is any clear evidence of maliciousness.

Some might say that kind of behavior is bad enough it still deserves to be punished, but I think the bar needs to be set higher to avoid catching people who really didn't mean any harm.

Use the Data Protection Laws

The data protection principles already cover this:

Fair collection: no secret filming,

Use of personal data: consensual bedroom shots assumed to be for private enjoyment of participants*

Duration of retention: Not kept longer than necessary. When the relationship ends, the original purpose (shared enjoyment by participants in the relationship) has ended, so the data must be destroyed*.

Security: protection from unauthorised access. If you're keeping the pics, it's your responsibility to make sure they don't "accidentally" leak onto the internet

* unless there is another agreement.

There are grey areas (topless beach is a public place, but a deserted beach plus a telephoto lens?), and things to be worked out (can you secretly film, then ask for consent?), but it fits, and simply brings more personal data under the same protection.

All people reserve the rights to...

their own image in private. In public, all bets are off. If you take a picture of a PERSON in that circumstance as opposed to INANIMATE OBJECTS, the person needs to give you permission; either direct or implied or delete the picture.

The photographer and the law has to use common sense.

If the subject is naked in their bedroom, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, in the back yard, less so but still on private property. In either case the images are private and should remain the property of the subject. The use of a telephoto lens or drone or other surveilliance does not protect the photograper.

Put that same subject naked or topless on a public beach or drunk on the streets and you should be able to publish anything.

That's all that is needed here, common sense; not another law.

Politicans' sense of proportion

" the posting of explicit images online without permission from the people depicted “an appalling crime”.

But authorising the deaths of thousands of people through indulging in an illegal war by a certain ex-prime minister is not considered a crime at all.

Good for the perpetrators too

There are cringe worthy and cruel things I did, mostly before I was 22, that still make my skin crawl 30 years later if I think of them.

Posting your ex to the webs might seem like a good idea to quite a lot of people when they are drunk and 18, but even 5 years later 99% of them will wish they just didn't do it.