4081 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
> Now days they get on their horses yell "yeeehaaawwww" and keep digging until they can find something that may stick.
They've probably found some naughty pictures on his computer, so they're just hanging on until the Extreme Porn legislation comes in, then they can do him for that!
@Andy Davie- Re: Ignorance is no defence
I agree that ignorance of the law is no defence, but the point is that the law on the Statute Books should be *comprehensible* to anyone who cares to read it.
The traditional "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" (or should that be "Man in the Clapham Internet Cafe" these days?!) should be able to look at the law and say "if I do X I will be breaking the law, but Y is legal".
The problem with this "Dangerous Pictures Act" is that it is someone else's entirely subjective opinion of what an image "risks" and whether it is "grossly offensive" that will determine your guilt or innocence and there is *NO WAY* to test that until it is shown to another person.
How many absurdities...?
Consider the following excerpts from this Bill:
1) An image is "pornographic" if it would be assumed that it was created for the purpose of sexual arousal.
This means that someone will, somehow, effectively have to make a decision as to what was in the mind of the creator of the image when they made it or in the mind of the owner when they downloaded it.
2) An "extreme image" is an image which [...] is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
But who decides? If you possess an image which you don't think is "grossly offensive" but someone else looks at it and says "that is disgusting!" you will be considered to have committed an offence, simply based on someone else's subjective opinion.
As I understand it, it is a principle of English Law that a reasonable person should be capable of understanding whether or not they were breaking the law, but the above statement means that it will be impossible for you or anyone else to even know whether you have broken the law until someone else passes judgement on an image.
3) An image is "extreme" if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
Again, who decides what is "explicit and realistic"? If it is two actors in a staged scene, that could still be explicit and realistic. For that matter these days any reasonably priced PC could create entirely computer generated images that look "explicit and realistic" even though they don't exist anywhere in the real world.
And what is a "threat to a person's life"? Someone pointing a gun at them? Holding a knife in a threatening manner? Someone engaging in "breath play" (which is not a criminal offence in and of itself)?
And who is to say that an act is "likely to result" in a serious injury? For that matter, what is a "serious injury"? Actual Bodily Harm? Grievous Bodily Harm? Wounding? These terms have accepted definitions under the law. "Serious injury" does not.
4) Exclusion of Classified Films
(3) But such an image is not an "excluded image" if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
So if someone takes a clip from Casino Royale of James Bond being tortured by having his genitals whipped with a heavy rope (is that risking "serious injury"?) and it's on the same hard drive as images of BDSM activity, it could be argued that it was taken "for sexual arousal" and they would have committed an offence, even though no *actual* harm was caused to anyone.
5) Defence: participation in consensual acts
(2) It is a defence for D [the Defendant] to prove—
(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and
(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person
This would mean that if a photographer were to take pictures of legal, consensual BDSM activities, if they did not appear in the image, whilst the people who appear in the image would be legally allowed to possess the image, the photographer would be committing an offence if they owned a copy!
These are just some of the numerous bizarre anomalies and ludicrous flaws that make this law, in the words of the Lords "unnecessary", "unworkable" and "undesirable", but it also fails to take into account, for instance, the recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of 5 Muslim students jailed for downloading "extremist material", where Lord Phillips found that, without criminal intent, mere possession of this material was insufficient cause for prosecution.
How is it, then, that, without criminal intent, mere possession of "extreme pornography" is cause for prosecution?
Even more important to those in the IT Community, whilst these vague and subjective definitions are on the statute books and thus "illegal", the IWF could demand ISPs block access to any site which someone complains has such imagery, potentially leading to mass censorship by an unaccountable body.
There is still time to write to your MP via http://www.writetothem.com and object to this nonsensical Thought Crime law which could as Baroness Miller said about Lord Hunt's words, be used to arrest people who are "causing concern" even when they have committed no crime!
Lord Hunt has hinted that a Select Committee could be formed to look at this law (after the Government has trumpetted their success in passing it to, hopefully, get some positive headlines after the kicking they just received) and I suggest that people contact their MP and encourage them to support the formation of such a Select Committee who will, hopefully, send this law back for complete revision.
Ikonboard Forums hacked
Recently a whole lot of Ikonboard Forum systems have been hacked, posts deleted and the words "We are Anonymous, we do not forgive, we do not forget" added along with some seriously distasteful images.
Now is this:
a) The same people who hacked the Scientologists but have now lost the plot?
b) Some skript kiddies who think that this makes them L33t?
c) The Scientologists trying to discredit the people who hacked them?
Place your bets...
We do not have unlimited energy!
I can see this rapidly devolving into another "man made global warming is a myth!", "T'isnt!", "T'is!", "T'isnt!", "T'is so!!!" argument.
But what that completely fails to realise is that we are using more and more *energy* and we cannot keep doing that indefinitely.
So instead of putting efforts into arguing about/ reducing/ trading "carbon footprints", how about we just start using energy in a more efficient manner and, who knows, it could have an unexpected knock on effect on the climate...!
@Steve Roper - Feminists Against Censorship
I suggest you do a little thinking and a little research before you make yourself look even sillier.
Feminism is about women saying "we have the right to make up our own minds about what we say and do, and that includes what we do with our bodies".
FAC object to other women saying "no, you shouldn't appear in porn because you're pandering to men and letting the side down", their view is that if a woman chooses to view or appear in porn that's their business, why should anyone else (including any other "feminist") tell them that they shouldn't?
And, FYI, when I put a petition against the Extreme Porn laws on the Number 10 Downing Street website, it was signed by over 1,800 people and at least 25% of those signatories were women.
See http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/ for more details.
> ...so what was the point again?
The point was that, after the murder of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts, the Government's knee jerked as certain puritanically minded MPs saw the opportunity to grab some headlines by exploiting a mother's grief and, at the same time, bring in a law to ban "filth" which they don't like.
The fact that even they admitted there was no evidence to prove a link between viewing "violent porn" and this crime (and, as has been mentioned above, the work of Professor Milton Diamond has shown the opposite is actually the case) was dismissed as irrelevant.
This law will be debated for the final time in the Lords tomorrow, see my links above for how to lobby them to ensure that at least there's some sanity included by introducing a test of obscenity with the Amendment proposed by Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace.
@What if it is... ahem... self made porno??
This will be, to some extent, ok, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (who is pushing this for the Government) has introduced an amendment which will allow a Defence of Consent but *only* as far as it says:
"(2) It is a defence for D to prove—
(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and
(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person,"
In other words, if you take a photograph of two people engaged in a legal and consensual act, but which would still fall under the definitions given, you would not be "directly participating" in the acts shown, so whilst the people in the picture would legally be allowed to own a copy, you would not and would, thus, still be a criminal.
I have written to Lord Hunt pointing out that all he needs to do is change the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) to "or" to correct this anomaly.
Also Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace have brought forward an amendment to include a test of obscenity. Since Labour have been saying since the start that they wanted to make this law part of the Obscene Publications Act, I'm hoping that they won't oppose it.
For the details of the law as it stands see Clauses 62 - 66 here <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/08051.i-vii.html>
For the Amendments currently being put forward see: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/amend/am051-a.htm>
For how to lobby the Lords, see <http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=630>
@Fight back 2 @ Erm
Petitions do damn all good. At http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/ you can find one that I started, signed by over 1,800 people who were willing to put their heads over the parapet and say "I object to this law".
All we got was a "fob them off" non-answer from a Government that doesn't give a damn what people think.
That is why people need to lobby the House of Lords NOW (see my post above) because they're the only ones who can actually do anything about this ridiculous law and the last chance is probably going to be on April 30th at the Third Reading of the Bill.
Re: AC Erm: "If it's legal to beat the shit out of your partner if they agree but illegal to film it and thus possess the images; is it not likely to INCREASE sexual violence?"
See the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD from the University of Hawai'i
He concludes: "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 and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims"
Still, why should the Government let the facts get in the way of a good old Moral Crusade?
"Have any of you actually read it?"
Yes, I have, more to the point, I have read *ALL* of it.
You, unfortunately have fallen for the "oh, well I don't like that stuff, so I don't mind if they ban it" gloss that the Government have put on it to sucker people into supporting a law which is based on the premise that "if they don't see it, they won't want to do it".
What "extreme porn" did Jack the Ripper view? For that matter, what about the Yorkshire Ripper? Oh, that's right, he didn't, he read the Bible!
You said it "says that "extreme" means one of the following: snuff movies, genital mutilation, necrophilia and bestiality" but actually snuff movies and genital mutilation aren't mentioned, only "an act which threatens a person’s life" or "an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals" or "an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse" or
"an person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal".
These terms are, however, extremely vague, if I take a picture of a naked woman pointing a gun at a naked man that is "an act which threatens a person's life" and it can be argued is "for sexual arousal" even if it's a posed photo using a fake gun shot by consenting models. Is that *really* something which is "extreme and shouldn't be lawful"? No, but it would be caught by this law.
It then goes on to say "and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real" meaning that you created a photo-realistic CGI image (which can be done on any reasonably powerful PC these days) you would be in possession of "extreme pornography" even if it was entirely fictitious!
The Government have been clever with this one, because they've couched it in terms of "extreme pornography" to get people like you on their side and you don't realise that this will set a precedent that they can then say, for instance, "well, people approve of this law, so let's extend it to video games that show 'extreme violence'..."
This is why we need to lobby the Lords RIGHT NOW and convince them to amend this law, because the odds are that the Government (who want to force this through by May 8th) will, as I have said, guillotine debate such that our MPs will never even get to discuss this part and people will risk being jailed based on someone else's subjective opinion of what an image looks like.
Time is very short, please lobby the Lords NOW!
Firstly, many thanks to El Reg for letting people know about these proposals for a "Dangerous Pictures Act".
I, and many others, including members of Liberty, Feminists Against Censorship and the Spanner Trust have been lobbying against them since they were first introduced, because they are a) completely vague and ill-defined, being based on someone's subjective opinion of what an image appears to show (ie if it is "grossly offensive or disgusting" and if they think it "risks serious injury to a person's breasts, genitals or anus", even if the participants are consenting adults and the acts shown are entirely legal) and b) introduce Thought Crime into English Law because they are based on the idea that "if people don't see this stuff, they won't try to do it!"
There is still time to lobby the House of Lords (the Government wants to force this Bill through by May 8th, so the odds are they'll guillotine the debate in the Commons meaning that MPs won't even get to discuss these proposals).
Visit http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php and scroll down for the thread "Just less than a month to go. Write to the Lords now." This thread contains a list (about the 8th post down) of all the Lords who have e-mail addresses. Also in that section you'll find a number of letters written by myself and others which have arguments you can use to base your letters on if you want.
There are other arguments such as those in the above article and ones that can be found on http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/index.html
The Lib Dems Lords are already onside, but we need to persuade the Cross Benchers, and Tories (if the Tories hadn't abstained, the proposals would have been voted out) and, indeed, the Labour Lords (who aren't as sheep-like as their MPs) that such a law has no place in this country (it belongs in places like China, Iran or North Korea!)
You can find more details of which party (if any) a Lord is part of by visiting http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peers/ and there's also links there that will let you send messages via the House of Lords fax machine.
Lord Hunt, for the Government said "I recognise that it would be anomalous for a person to be committing an offence by possessing an image of an act which he undertook perfectly lawfully. We intend to introduce at Third Reading a defence which addresses precisely that situation" but this seems to suggest it will cover only acts which the picture owner participated in such that any other images, even when featuring consenting adults, would still be illegal.
Since we are probably not going to be able to get these draconian laws thrown out, the next best thing is for them to include a defence that provided a reasonable person would assume that *any* of the participants were consenting, then an image is not illegal.
Please, people, lobby the Lords NOW! Be polite, be concise, be reasonable, but don't be a criminal for looking at "Dangerous Pictures!"
PS Re Mycho's comment "Sadly it excludes rated films", well, yes, but only *as a whole*! If you take a clip from a BBFC and, again in someone else's subjective opinion, it is "extreme" and you did it "for sexual arousal" then you've just committed a crime!
Excuse me, but...
... that icon is my irony detector going up in flames!!
@ "Sex work" = exploitation and degradation
Exploitation? You mean unlike being exploited in some miserable minimum wage job stacking boxes or slinging burgers or chopping up chickens or soldering components onto circuit boards or doing data entry...?
As for "degradation", I know women who work in many areas in the sex industry who will tell you that most of those complaining about the "degradation" of women are actually feminists who think that it is "letting the side down" and think that the women who do so shouldn't have the right to choose for themselves how they earn money!
... has been talking about re-doing B7 for a lot of years now.
Fortunately, for anyone who has read "Avon: A Terrible Book" (oh, sorry, that was supposed to be "Terrible Aspect" he has never got beyond the talking stage!
As for Tony Attwood's "Afterlife", the less said, the better...
Opt out? No way!
I am an organ donor because it is *MY* choice.
It is *MY* choice what happens with my body, the State does not have a right to tell me that it can take my organs because "well you don't need them any more, do you?"
I suggest reading some Larry Niven to see where that sort of thing leads.
"if they are let loose into society in no time at all by the do-gooders !!"
I am very probably one of those people you would describe as a "do-gooder" (or, at least, not one of the "hang them and flog them brigade") except that I am in favour of *proven* techniques such as rehabilitation treatment and post-release support groups which have been *shown* to reduce recidivism.
Unfortunately there are those who think that these are "soft options" and don't want such groups "in my back yard" (translation: anywhere within 100 miles of their house or a school) and protest against allowing such groups anywhere to operate and object to them getting funding and don't want tax payers to support them.
And *then* they complain because some of these people re-offend *after* every support structure that could stop this from happening has been removed!
"That's a more robust approach and even that has become the target of complaints that victims of credit card abuse have unfairly become targets of child abuse investigations."
Well, yes, if you were one of those many people who were effectively told "Accept a Caution and admit to a crime you didn't commit or we'll drag you through the Courts and wreck your career and destroy your family" when you were the victim of blatant card theft, I think you would tend to complain that it was unfair...!
That's not a definition of "robust" that I am personally aware of...
How about a new reality show...?
Each seat is equipped with an Ejector Device and people can vote for which passenger is having the most annoying conversation and then launch them off the plane.
*That* would get idiots to keep their voices down (or solve the problem very quickly!)
"Samantha Fox, age 16, goes topless in the Sun, this would be considered illigal in many contries"
Including in the UK.
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 the definition of "child" in "child pornography" (ie indecent images of children) was reduced from 18 to 16, thus suddenly rendering a whole load of images illegal overnight.
"When did a prison stop being a place of punishment for crime and start being a holiday resort with free drugs?"
When people finally realised that all the "tough on criminals", "longer sentences deter criminals", "make prison so nasty that people will go straight rather than go to jail" BS was exactly that: *bullshit*.
Try researching at the history of prisons and sentencing and see just how "successful" such things have been. Consider the phrase "Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb" or the "Three strikes and you're in jail for 25 years" policy that resulted in people being jailed for nicking a slice of pizza. Note also that programmes such as the "Short Sharp Shock" and "Boot Camps" have been discontinued because they *didn't work*!
Until people start realising this and stop thinking that "well it's common sense, isn't it" arguments hold as much value as "I heard it from a bloke at the pub" and we start dealing with the root problems of social deprivation and drug dependency that actually cause much of the crime we see today, things are not going to improve.
Of course such things don't allow the Government and Opposition to make attention seeking grabs for the headlines with the failed rhetoric we've heard for the last few decades, but they do allow the Tabloids to make claims of "Prison Holiday Camps with Free Drugs"...
Graham's Three Rules for Defensive Riding:
1) Don't assume they've seen you.
2) Don't assume they'll respect your right of way.
3) Do assume they'll do something that will kill you unless *you* get out of their way!
It shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is and that's why around 2/3rds of accidents involving motorbikes and other vehicles are deemed to be the fault of the *other* vehicle.
Perhaps if the radar system was modified to include a cattle prod in the driver's seat which is triggered if they attempt to perform a manoeuvre when someone is in their blind spot it would encourage cagers (car drivers) to undertake better observation in the first place.
For more details, see Devon County's Road Safety film.
... BBC are belong to us!
How would you feel...?
... if it was your private and personal life that was being broadcast over the net simply so some gutter rag can sell more papers?
People in the BDSM scene have been hounded out of their jobs in similar ways, for instance simply because they happen to be a teacher who goes to fetish clubs.
But *WHAT* does that have to do with anything? Answer: Nothing!
Is it the business of anyone else? Hell, no!
Plenty of readers of El Reg object to the Government collecting data on them without their consent and then sharing it amongst all sorts of other people, why should it be acceptable for a rag like the News of the Screws to "gather data" on someone who is breaking no laws and then sharing it with others?
Max Mosely had nothing to hide because it was *nobody's* business but his own, yet he now has to "fear" that his job is in jeopardy because of salacious tittle-tattle.
I hope that...
... they're not going to call the company Cybus Industries.
Next thing you know they'll be introducing a metal exo-skeleton "upgrade" for the human body...!
"we are determined to stop criminals profiting from crimes which affect the lives of the law abiding majority."
You mean like MPs claiming huge expenses from the public purse?
Or maybe the Government doling out PFI schemes that will cost the public many billions over the next few years?
Or what about Ministers passing legislation that suddenly turns out to be incredibly useful for companies that they then take Directorships of when they leave office...?
Well it's certainly a creative way to shoot your own business in the foot!
You realise, of course, that the law of Conservation of Narrative Causality will mean that it's actually your Time Machine that becomes the asteroid that plummets to Earth so you will, indeed, have a ringside seat...
The credibility (or lack thereof) of Dr Byron's review can been judged by the fact that she says the following about the Home Office's "Rapid Evidence Assessment" which they had cobbled together to back up their draconian plans to outlaw what they call "extreme pornography":
"[...] a recent study looking at pornography and its effects on adults did find evidence of effects, including on attitudes, beliefs, fantasies, desires and behaviour of those who use it (Itzin, Taket and Kelly, 2007)"
What she doesn't mention (or doesn't know) is that Itzin et al are feminist anti-pornography campaigners and Itzin herself said "pornography plays an important part in contributing to sexual violence against women and to sex discrimination and sexual inequality", so it seems unlikely that any report authored by here was impartial or unbiased!
Neither does she mention that all the above study really says is a statement of the bleeding obvious, ie that people who are inclined to violence tend to look at violent material, but offers *no* proof that there is a causal link.
Do you know the expression "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" Doctor Byron??
PS She also claims that "Some material on the internet, such as [...] extreme pornography is clearly illegal in the UK."
The hell it is, Doctor Byron! The House of Lords are currently kicking the Government's backsides about this one and anyone who agrees that Big Brother shouldn't try to tell us that "if you look at this you'll do nasty things" should visit the Backlash site at http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and write to the Lords and their MP before we see Thought Crime enter British Law.
BBC does it again...
I've just seen a report on this on BBC News 24 where they trot out the old myth about 14 year old Stephan Pakeerah who was murdered by by Warren LeBlanc and blaming it on Manhunt, but they failed to point out that it was the 14 year old *VICTIM* who had the game, nor question *why* his parents had let him have it.
They also failed to point out that Police and Prosecution statements put the blame on it being a drugs related killing because obviously that's not as good as a "video games corrupt your children" scare story.
Facts? Who needs facts...??
But what *type* of helicopters...?
> It appears that Taiwan had actually ordered a number of batteries for use in "US-supplied helicopters"
See icon for details!
@Andrew Norton - Re: F1's time has been
I don't even bother watching the F1 "highlights" these days, I record it on Sky+ then work on my computer until the commentator gets excited and I look up to see if anything's actually happened, but unfortunately usually it's not much.
Compare that with A1 GP where, with two meetings left to the end of the season (and four races!) there are at least *four* teams who could take the championship, you don't get the cars from two or three teams so far ahead that they might as well be in a different race, you get a real test of driver skill and tactics with the limited use Power Boost button and you get passing manoeuvres all the way up and down the field.
Forget about F1, it's living on past glories...
Buffer overflows? WHY???
It was about 25 years ago that I learned to program and it was simple common sense (as well as good practice) that if you had a buffer that takes up to 128 characters, you checked the data that was coming into it to ensure that its length was less than or equal to 128.
If it was longer, you truncated it or kicked it back with an error.
When did this cease being the case?
Firstly what you link to is a consultation document, not an actual law and secondly, as far as I can see much of that consultation is simply designed at fixing the mess that the Government made previously which allowed Brian Haw to continue his demonstration!
BTW mixing fact with conspiracy fiction such as: 'loosing' our details and thyen doing nothing when you get fraudulated, chemtrails and stuff in our water and vaccines poisoning us, a medical health system that kills people and don't care about the rest..terrorism in general (which is ALL bullshit designed to keep you frightened and alow more conrol over you),..." isn't going to help convince people of your cause.
PS I love the word "fraudulated" though :-)
Missed point, missed opportunity...
The problem with all this is that while people are arguing about Global Warming is man made (It is! It isn't! 'Tis so! 'Tisnt! Liar! You're the liar! etc etc) we're all rather missing the point that we *cannot* go on using energy and resources as if they were limitless.
We need more efficient forms of energy and resource usage whether what we are doing affects the environment or not, because otherwise we are going to run out and we'll have missed the opportunity to have done something about it.
Large scale databases [...] error rate of between five and ten per cent,
> so a government database containing 10 million records might have between 500,000 and one million errors.
Now expand that out to the population of this country and remember that the National Identity Database is supposed to collate records from multiple sources...!
IM (cynical) O the reason that Restorative Justice wasn't continued with is that it doesn't make for attention grabbing headlines about being "tough on crime" and leaves the proposers open to charges of being "bleeding heart liberals" who want to "give criminals a slap on the wrist" etc etc.
The fact that it seems to actually *work* is a mere irrelevance.
Oh and before the "Hang them and flog them" brigade start, perhaps they'd actually like to do a little research at http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/
> surely the Reg should have a good unit of depth?
I would suggest for small measurements, the PH or Pot Hole, being 2" deep, would be suitable. (Apparently Councils have been recommended that any hole that is less than 2 inches or 50mm deep is no longer a "priority" for repair)
For greater depths, the "Blackburn (Lancashire)" or Bbn(L), being 4000 x 2" holes would be suitable.
Thus the average depth of the Grand Canyon would be approximately 8 Bbn(L) and the lunar craters around 32Bbn(L)
> Now if you are looking for a really crap sequel, try highlander 2.
Fortunately I saw it on a copy a friend had obtained. Had I actually *paid* to see that misbegotten pile of garbage I would have been queueing for my money back!
Highlander films: There should have been only one!
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire