
Revenge porn: More than 200 prosecuted under new law - cjg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37278264
======
xupybd
Perhaps it's time for law makers to think about going after those who profit
by hosting these images? I'd much rather see resources spent taking these guys
down, over going after the likes of Mega.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
So Pornhub and every other tube site that allows user submissions?

------
pjc50
A useful step. It's worth carefully parsing this section:

"(5)In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), A has a defence if the
following matter is established—

(a)B was in the intimate situation shown in the photograph or film,

(b)B was not in the intimate situation as a result of a deliberate act of
another person to which B did not agree, and

(c)when B was in the intimate situation—

(i)B was in a place to which members of the public had access (whether or not
on payment of a fee), and

(ii)members of the public were present."

.. which is kind of clunkily worded, but seems to be there to provide a
defence for people taking photos of those voluntarily exposing themselves in
public. I'm not quite sure how this will be applied to tabloid telescopic
voyeurism. A sufficiently aggressive prosecutor could either kill the Daily
Mail overnight or force them to admit that most of their "snaps" are in fact
staged publicity.

------
yodsanklai
Just curious, suppose you have 'private' pictures of someone that you took
with their consent, is it legal show them around (without sharing them?)?

~~~
InclinedPlane
Did they give consent to showing them around?

~~~
wodenokoto
I think the thought is, that basically no pictures you take of anybody come
with any formal consent of showing them around.

~~~
Jabbles
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/enacted](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/enacted)

The law relates to "a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show,
another person (“B”) in an intimate situation,"

which is further defined:

"a person is in an “intimate situation” if—

(a)the person is engaging or participating in, or present during, an act
which—

(i)a reasonable person would consider to be a sexual act, and

(ii)is not of a kind ordinarily done in public, or

(b)the person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with
underwear."

------
NumberCruncher
I listened to the story of Chrissy. My takeaway is "Before drinking until
blacking out make sure you are in the right company!" People may change so
practically there is no such thing as "right company"...

------
a_imho
mitigating responsibility

------
kahrkunne
Stupid censorship. The only thing that should make "revenge porn" illegal is
the copyright issue of the people who share this material not having the
copyright.

~~~
MatthewWilkes
It's a form of domestic violence and absolutely should be prevented by things
other than the threat of being sued under intellectual property law.

~~~
kahrkunne
It's not "violence". Posting pictures isn't violence.

~~~
coldtea
There's such a thing as "Psychological violence". Violence is not just punches
and kicks.

In fact pshycial force is only one of several definitions of violence in the
dictionary ("rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment") which
also includes things such as: "roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent" and
"intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme" for "violence".

~~~
cabalamat
> There's such a thing as "Psychological violence".

That's a dishonest redefining of a word. The motivation behind it is: people
think violence is bad, we'll call this thing violence even though it isn't, so
people think this thing is worse that they already think.

~~~
_ak
What redefinition? Just look at modern definitions of violence, for example
that of the World Health Organization. That definition has been around for
ages, and is rather uncontroversial, unlike you seem to suggest.

And even if you want to a total nitpicker, from an etymological standpoint
there's nothing that suggests that violence only describes physical acts of
violence.

~~~
coldtea
> _And even if you want to a total nitpicker, from an etymological standpoint
> there 's nothing that suggests that violence only describes physical acts of
> violence._

Heck, even back to the very etymology of the word from latin it means both
"vehement" (showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense) and
exerting strong physical force.

------
throwaway4546
Is all revenge porn barred under the law or are there circumstances to take
into account? If your longtime spouse cheats on you, turns your world upside,
and further abandons you, is not revenge porn some people's last power they
have to (equally immorally) strike back?

~~~
xupybd
I don't know if the law should be written to allow people to "strike back".
Self defence is one thing but revenge is not a good justification. If you
allow revenge for one action where do you draw the line? After generations
everyone would have cause to "strike back" at someone.

------
Shonky
How is this tech news? Oh, was it filmed and distributed using smartphones and
internet? Yes, then it's a tech news.

Technology how to detect these type of content using AI - that could be a tech
news, not merely a fact of some angry ex uploading naughty pics.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
New technology enables new crimes, which in turn inspire new laws? Of course
that's tech news.

(Besides which, Hacker News is not just for tech news. Read the guidelines.)

~~~
Shonky
I enjoy non-tech news on HN. I should have made myself clearer, that I am kind
of disappointed with BBC.

