UK - first extreme porn court case

[clozaril]

the thinking is that if you watch 'extreme porn' then you are likely to go out and abuse someone without consent. kinda like watching an action film then going out and kicking someones head in.

it's a strange law as if something looks like it is grossly offensive then it is classed as extreme porn even if it is 2 actors, 2 consenting adults or even 2 friends filming their kinky sex session and lending you the tape. it's up to the magistrate to decide if it's grossly offensive.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/24/extreme_pron_law_live/


the person in court is also charged with gross indecency and indecent assault.

Alan Moore, of Windslow Drive, Carrickfergus, is believed to be the first person in the UK to be charged under the new extreme pornography law.

It was brought in after a campaign by a woman whose daughter was killed by a man who used violent pornography.

Anyone with sexually violent images could be jailed for up to three years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8167351.stm

[illuminumnuts]

It doesn't elaborate in the least about what images he had. I would like to know.

[alzee]

pics pls

[kriss_crow]

pics pls

use your imagination, mate

[disorder2k8]

from same site
A visit to your PC repair shop could be swiftly followed by a trip to court and a short stay in your local jail if it harbours any remotely questionable material - whether you knew about it or not.

That, at least, is the fear as the latest confirmed outing for the Dangerous Pictures Act sees one individual prosecuted after a PC engineer spotted potentially unlawful pictures on their PC - and his line manager passed on details to the police.


The case was decided in St Helens Magistrates Court last week, and the defendant, described by District Judge Ian Lomax as having "low social skills", was sentenced to an 18-month supervision order, 24 hours at an attendance centre and costs of £65.

The relative lightness of this sentence is explained as the judge observed that the motivation for this offence, involving just 14 images, was curiosity: no sharing of files or processing had taken place.

This case highlights two interesting aspects of the now active extreme porn law, which makes it a criminal offence merely to possess certain types of imagery.

First, if recent reports from our enforcement sources are correct, the law is now very definitely being used by police to target pictures involving bestiality.

In the previous instance, it appears that it was used in preference to a charge under the Obscene Publications Act. This suggests that it may simply be easier to obtain a conviction under a law that states that depiction of sex with an animal is an offence – rather than asking a jury to determine whether such a picture "tended to deprave or corrupt".

Second, we have yet to see the law being used specifically in respect of "extreme" imagery – which was the initial justification for its passing. Time will tell.

In respect of computer repairs, this case highlights the risks taken every time a computer is handed over for examination. According to lawyer Julian Young, senior partner at Julian Young & Co, there is no obligation on a computer repair person to refer a matter to the police – though he did comment that he believed that such an obligation did exist in respect of photographic processing.

"There is little comeback for anyone reported in this matter," he said. "In English law, the doctrine of 'fruit of the poison tree' does exist – but mostly in respect of police behaviour. For instance, if the police have obtained a warrant to search premises by deception, then evidence found as a result of that search may be ruled inadmissible.

"However, in the case of a computer engineer reporting you or your PC to the police, you are unlikely to have any comeback. If no prosecution follows and you are able to show that the individual was browsing areas that were not relevant to their work – or the referral was motivated by malice – there might be some limited remedy.

"But it would be very difficult to prove."

This was confirmed by lawyers specialising in IT Contract Law: if you hand your computer over for repair, there is an expectation of privacy – but it is very difficult to show that this has been breached, and therefore very difficult to obtain any redress.

We also spoke to a computer engineer working with a large repair firm in South London. They expressed the view that, contrary to popular belief, there was often a need to look at data on a hard drive.

He said: "One of the most common problems we are asked to deal with is data recovery.

"Many trojans will corrupt the Windows partition table. We use data recovery software to scrutinise the hard drive and hopefully fix the problem. However, before we hand the computer back, it is standard practice to look at some images – very briefly – to make sure that the data has been recovered accurately.

"We don’t browse our clients’ computers for fun: but we do look at a range of files to check that we have done the job successfully. If, in the course of that check, I came across something serious – child porn or terror material – I would certainly alert the police."

Whilst in theory this should only be of concern to individuals who habitually surf in areas where they ought not, readers should remember that many porn sites will download all manner of images, sometimes going well beyond the matter originally sought.

The lesson is therefore clear: be careful where you surf. Clean your PC regularly: and take your own back-ups. ®

[whitenight639]

A visit to your PC repair shop could be swiftly followed by a trip to court and a short stay in your local jail if it harbours any remotely questionable material - whether you knew about it or not.

That, at least, is the fear as the latest confirmed outing for the Dangerous Pictures Act sees one individual prosecuted after a PC engineer spotted potentially unlawful pictures on their PC - and his line manager passed on details to the police.


The case was decided in St Helens Magistrates Court last week, and the defendant, described by District Judge Ian Lomax as having "low social skills", was sentenced to an 18-month supervision order, 24 hours at an attendance centre and costs of £65.

The relative lightness of this sentence is explained as the judge observed that the motivation for this offence, involving just 14 images, was curiosity: no sharing of files or processing had taken place.

This case highlights two interesting aspects of the now active extreme porn law, which makes it a criminal offence merely to possess certain types of imagery.

First, if recent reports from our enforcement sources are correct, the law is now very definitely being used by police to target pictures involving bestiality.

In the previous instance, it appears that it was used in preference to a charge under the Obscene Publications Act. This suggests that it may simply be easier to obtain a conviction under a law that states that depiction of sex with an animal is an offence – rather than asking a jury to determine whether such a picture "tended to deprave or corrupt".

Second, we have yet to see the law being used specifically in respect of "extreme" imagery – which was the initial justification for its passing. Time will tell.

In respect of computer repairs, this case highlights the risks taken every time a computer is handed over for examination. According to lawyer Julian Young, senior partner at Julian Young & Co, there is no obligation on a computer repair person to refer a matter to the police – though he did comment that he believed that such an obligation did exist in respect of photographic processing.

"There is little comeback for anyone reported in this matter," he said. "In English law, the doctrine of 'fruit of the poison tree' does exist – but mostly in respect of police behaviour. For instance, if the police have obtained a warrant to search premises by deception, then evidence found as a result of that search may be ruled inadmissible.

"However, in the case of a computer engineer reporting you or your PC to the police, you are unlikely to have any comeback. If no prosecution follows and you are able to show that the individual was browsing areas that were not relevant to their work – or the referral was motivated by malice – there might be some limited remedy.

"But it would be very difficult to prove."

This was confirmed by lawyers specialising in IT Contract Law: if you hand your computer over for repair, there is an expectation of privacy – but it is very difficult to show that this has been breached, and therefore very difficult to obtain any redress.

We also spoke to a computer engineer working with a large repair firm in South London. They expressed the view that, contrary to popular belief, there was often a need to look at data on a hard drive.

He said: "One of the most common problems we are asked to deal with is data recovery.

"Many trojans will corrupt the Windows partition table. We use data recovery software to scrutinise the hard drive and hopefully fix the problem. However, before we hand the computer back, it is standard practice to look at some images – very briefly – to make sure that the data has been recovered accurately.

"We don’t browse our clients’ computers for fun: but we do look at a range of files to check that we have done the job successfully. If, in the course of that check, I came across something serious – child porn or terror material – I would certainly alert the police."

Whilst in theory this should only be of concern to individuals who habitually surf in areas where they ought not, readers should remember that many porn sites will download all manner of images, sometimes going well beyond the matter originally sought.

The lesson is therefore clear: be careful where you surf. Clean your PC regularly: and take your own back-ups. ®

Thats BS, i work with computers and have seen sensative information, but would never disclose something to a third party unless it was child porn.

It is against the Data protection act and its a breach of trust.

so what some geek likes to watch people shaggin annimals, or rough sex.

[alzee]

use your imagination, mate

no thanks, pal, i'd rather have the visual stimulation.

[godgoo]

Thats windows for you mate, tbh. Not very secure any linux distro can breach the security of a windows OS, np. There are ways to prevent your data becoming readable. Linux offers the best security by far, A choice of filesystems that can be encrytped, unbreakable encryption methods can be implemented, which I doubt some computer engineer working on a line or even in a shop could break.

You should keep your data safe, bank account history, CV's etc are all located on many drives, windows doesn't offer any security. Once the bios is bypassed so the technician can do his/her job your FS is open for plunder. Use linux get to know the system, problem solved.

get crackin and enjoy the freedom and security of GNU Linux

http://www.debian.org/

Other distros

http://distrowatch.com/

Gentoo it difficult for the first time user, so can be Debian. But I started with Debian 6 years ago and have never looked back. I fully migrated from windows OS. Each distro can be customized different security levels, etc. It's all down to the user, so learn the system. Use it in it's fullest. I would suggest debian for any user because it good on all levels of knowledge.

And it's all free, and secure. all apps in the rep are GPL licensed. all safe software. (software revolution baby) :)

[henryv]

A few good sites are "Goregasm" which has a "dead bitches" section; "Charonboat" which has some real nasty stuff; and if you really want to do 3 years, download some stuff from "thenecrofiles." There's one pic there of a guy fucking a hollow corpse where you can see his dick inside her.

I suppose that means I'm going out to find a corpse, or even kill one of my own. Load of crap. Back in the 70's when pedo porn was legalized in Denmark, attacks on kids dropped to almost zero overnight!

[brainfreeze]

A few good sites are "Goregasm" which has a "dead bitches" section; "Charonboat" which has some real nasty stuff; and if you really want to do 3 years, download some stuff from "thenecrofiles." There's one pic there of a guy fucking a hollow corpse where you can see his dick inside her.

I suppose that means I'm going out to find a corpse, or even kill one of my own. Load of crap. Back in the 70's when pedo porn was legalized in Denmark, attacks on kids dropped to almost zero overnight!

I guess it takes all sorts huh?

What's so sexy about dead people and children?

Sounds sick to me!

[whitenight639]

A few good sites are "Goregasm" which has a "dead bitches" section; "Charonboat" which has some real nasty stuff; and if you really want to do 3 years, download some stuff from "thenecrofiles." There's one pic there of a guy fucking a hollow corpse where you can see his dick inside her.

I suppose that means I'm going out to find a corpse, or even kill one of my own. Load of crap. Back in the 70's when pedo porn was legalized in Denmark, attacks on kids dropped to almost zero overnight!


that sounds lovely :rolleyes: think i much prefer my women healthy and alive thanks, i cant understand some peoples perversion.

[merlincove]

Regardless of what people 'get off on' the wider implications of this are very scarey. A magistarte or jury have the power under this legislation to impliment their own opinion on what is acceptable for someone to look at.

We are free to download what we want to download, whatever that may be. On moralistic grounds some things are wrong, images of children/ animal / necro sex are in my opinion images of rape as there is no consent and moralistic views of course come into the equasion. Society says that these things are wrong and justly so imo. But where the downloaded images are of consenting adults, who is someone to judge whetrher the possesion of those images constitutes a crime. Because it doesn't.

Obtaining images of consenting adults engaged in whatever form of gratification does not equate to anyone exerting harm or loss or injury to anyone else and does not therefore represent any crime commited.

When we live in a land where our thoughts and fantasies are policed we live in a land devoid of any kind of freedom. The freedoms to think and to desire, where such do not encroach upon anyone elses freedom or human right is surely a basic human condition and as such can never be judged lawfully?

If me and my lady were to download a 'hanging bitches' video, whatever that is, for our own enjoyment ~ how can a judge or a jury or even society say that that is wrong? Is it lawfuly wrong, legally wrong or moralistically wrong to watch consenting adults? If it doesn't fit into either of those three catagories then it isn't wrong, surely. And of course, as with any kind of rape porn, such as child, animal and necro porn, where lawful consent can not / is not given then such can be judged in all 3 catagories.

I guess it takes all sorts huh?

What's so sexy about dead people and children?

Sounds sick to me!

Couldn't have said it better.

[godgoo]

Having sex with dead people is really sick, to say the very least. Maybe a shooting gallery for these people. Because that is disturbed and in my eyes these people should be killed on sight.

[rhydra]

There are things I find disgusting, personally, i don't look for it, however some people might, perhaps most of it isn't sexual related. What about war photographers, supposed someone is shown a picture of a little girl covered in napalm? Will that person then go out, cover little girls in napalm then abuse the body?
How long before we hear reports of someone being found with a picture of something less than the missionary position and excess flesh visible?

[godgoo]

There are things I find disgusting, personally, i don't look for it, however some people might, perhaps most of it isn't sexual related. What about war photographers, supposed someone is shown a picture of a little girl covered in napalm? Will that person then go out, cover little girls in napalm then abuse the body?
How long before we hear reports of someone being found with a picture of something less than the missionary position and excess flesh visible?Somethings though you simply aren't suppose to see, These people want you to observe their workings in the details they are committed, which is them laughing right at you. They want you to be apart of their sick world. You are essentially seeing through these peoples eyes, and that does effect your mind in many ways. Keep the old grey matter clean, its the best thing.

You made a good point though up until going out and doing something. No doubt these war photographers feel as though they want to avenge this mess and so they feel anguish that they're defenseless, this is the position and the emotional termoil that these people get consumed by. But people who observe obscene material are either just curious about being sick or are preparing to be sick. either way it is a negative impact on people, on both sides of this argument.

[illuminumnuts]

Paedophilia is already legislated for. I think possession of images of bestiality should be outlawed too myself. I would say the same for necrophilia too, but how do you prove it's a real corpse? The whole sexual violence issue seems very blurry to me. Does an image of simulated rape count? :confused: It all seems a bit of a farce. Let's not forget though, this isn't about simply seeing such images while surfing. If a dodgy porn site directed someone elsewhere they would still have to download any illegal images themselves. They can't say 'not me guv'. I think some music site got hacked recently and directed people to images of paedophilia or something. No one was obliged to download it! I think that's how it works anyway. I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong.

[christuffer]

Unless they fully describe in detail everything contained, how can people know if they are breaking the law?

[nezmond]

Hi, first post so here goes. i feel that its just going to end with an entire cencorship to the internet and all we will see when we log on is gona be something like teletext and all usefull information will be supressed and any info appearing to look sensetive will just be misinfo so they can profile us and take appropriate action. and theyl know who was looking because our microchips will be used to log on to the intranet.

[citroen999]

A few good sites are "Goregasm" which has a "dead bitches" section; "Charonboat" which has some real nasty stuff; and if you really want to do 3 years, download some stuff from "thenecrofiles." There's one pic there of a guy fucking a hollow corpse where you can see his dick inside her.

I suppose that means I'm going out to find a corpse, or even kill one of my own. Load of crap. Back in the 70's when pedo porn was legalized in Denmark, attacks on kids dropped to almost zero overnight!

apart from the attacks on th kids in th movies..:eek: didnt solve anything ... kids where still getting abused and for entertainment

[free thinker]

And of course, the judge is probably a NONCE, they seem to like the choirboys dont they.:D

[illuminumnuts]

Hi, first post so here goes. i feel that its just going to end with an entire cencorship to the internet and all we will see when we log on is gona be something like teletext and all usefull information will be supressed and any info appearing to look sensetive will just be misinfo so they can profile us and take appropriate action. and theyl know who was looking because our microchips will be used to log on to the intranet.

Good first post. They will probably start from scratch on civilian sites and if you want to create a website you will have to pay for a site licence. They will probably have a twat squad monitoring the net and any sites deemed 'other' will be taken down and the person behind it prosecuted.

[godgoo]

Paedophilia is already legislated for. I think possession of images of bestiality should be outlawed too myself. I would say the same for necrophilia too, but how do you prove it's a real corpse? The whole sexual violence issue seems very blurry to me. Does an image of simulated rape count? :confused: It all seems a bit of a farce. Let's not forget though, this isn't about simply seeing such images while surfing. If a dodgy porn site directed someone elsewhere they would still have to download any illegal images themselves. They can't say 'not me guv'. I think some music site got hacked recently and directed people to images of paedophilia or something. No one was obliged to download it! I think that's how it works anyway. I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong. I suppose it depends if the images are in the Temp folder? If such an instance happens where you are redirected towards a site that is hosting illegal content, the browser cache would contain the images from the site, obviously depending how much storage you have dedicated for your browsers history and how often you have the cache to empty. Then those images could remain there and still be easily viewable for weeks/months. But obviously access dates would be recorded and the creation date would be recorded, so if there was any discrepancy in the access and creation date, then they could possibly find you guilty. but if there was no change in last accessed and creation date, which should be the same. then you would be ok. If this happened.

[real6]

Pics, or IT DIDNT HAPPEN ;)

[Ian2day]

All this other crap is a pain for those who just want to view material of consenting adults. Trying to find free quality films of over 18's on the internet is like juggling hand granades with mittons on while wearing a blindfold.

[Ian2day]

I suppose it depends if the images are in the Temp folder? If such an instance happens where you are redirected towards a site that is hosting illegal content, the browser cache would contain the images from the site, obviously depending how much storage you have dedicated for your browsers history and how often you have the cache to empty. Then those images could remain there and still be easily viewable for weeks/months. But obviously access dates would be recorded and the creation date would be recorded, so if there was any discrepancy in the access and creation date, then they could possibly find you guilty. but if there was no change in last accessed and creation date, which should be the same. then you would be ok. If this happened.


Can this be apllied to video content also? Is there a way to access video clips from say 3-4 months ago. Where would they be stored on the computer. As I am trying to find a previous viewed clip of some 9/11 footage from a website that has now been removed.

[dancing_with_durga]

The internet is the perfect tool for TBTB to frame someone. Just upload some images or video onto their hard drive without them knowing about it, then when the cops come and 'seize' their computer they are guilty as charged.

The whole notion of personal taste being decided by a court is not new. In fact the Obscene Publications Act fell almost into disuse in the 60s because juries tended to always pass 'not guilty' judgements when asked if something was obscene. The landmark trial was the "Lady Chatterley's Lover' case in the very early 60s, after Penguin published the book, written in the 20s, for the first time in Britain. Famously, the judge, in his summing up to the jury asked them "What you have to ask yourself is 'is this the kind of book you would want your wife or servants to read?"'
Verdict - not guilty of obscenity you stupid old goat.
.

[illuminumnuts]

Can this be apllied to video content also? Is there a way to access video clips from say 3-4 months ago. Where would they be stored on the computer. As I am trying to find a previous viewed clip of some 9/11 footage from a website that has now been removed.

I'm pretty sure videos stay in your temp files. So if you're one of those that doesn't clear out your browser regularly you should be able to retrieve it. I'm certainly not the best person to ask on this though.

[tgmu]

Can this be apllied to video content also? Is there a way to access video clips from say 3-4 months ago. Where would they be stored on the computer. As I am trying to find a previous viewed clip of some 9/11 footage from a website that has now been removed.

Even if you delete something, it stays on your HDD. It is just labelled as blank space, so new data is saved 'on top' of it. It's still there until it's overwritten. So if you deleted the data a long time ago, then installed a whole load of new software and downloaded a lot of new data onto your HDD, on balance, it's likely to have been overwritten, hence gone forever for the 'average' person not the security services*.

* (N.b. it's still likely to be restorable by SIS or NSA etc., it's just more difficult to restore at this point.)

You can buy software that can 'find' this deleted data and restore the files. I did this for my mother. Some of her treasured photographs were deleted, so she bought some software to restore the deleted photographs. It worked, the photos can back - some were perfect, and from memory I think some were either less-than-perfect, or 'un'-restorable.

The following isn't directed at specifically Ian, it's a general point for all thread viewers.

It's worth me pointing out, of you look at a website, all of the images are downloaded onto your computer. So even if you were to, for the sake of argument, accidentally open a website displaying images that breach the child pornography laws, or extreme pornography laws, or any other laws about pornography or obscene text in your location, the images/text (or data in general) will be on your HDD from this time onwards. If you were to then clear your browsing history, and delete all temporary internet files, empty your cache, delete all cookies, etc. the images may still be recoverable. The best way to make sure the images are gone for good it to ensure the data isn't simply deleted - it's better to overwrite the data. I use a Mac, and this is done on a Mac computer by either;

(i) deleting the files then securely emptying the trash, [finder > secure empty trash]

(ii) from Disk Utility, either:

[erase free space] - use this to erase everything that's been deleted already. You can select [zero out] or [x pass] where x is the number of times you want 'junk' data to overwrite the deleted data. The more, the harder it is to recover the deleted data.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5514/delfpa.jpg

or

[security options] - use to securely delete files.
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1633/del2r.jpg