71–80 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The follow up bill which makes it mandatory to have government spyware on all https servers?
They can't do that because it would require major open source web servers to be forked. There's no way they're going to persuade operators in other countries to run UK government spyware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As an anecdote related to this, there is a law that came into force in the UK in 2009 which made illegal drawings showing fictional characters who appear to be under 18 engaging in sex So you're saying that watching most hentai is borderline illegal in the UK? That's crazy.
I wouldn't say most , but a good proportion is, even possession of it. The catch is that the character has to give the "predominant impression" of being a child, so they can have non-child like features (such as slightly larger breasts, antennae (as was mentioned during the debate) etc.) and still be counted under the law. And you think you can encrypt to get away from it? No chance! If you refuse to hand over your k…
The requirements for getting you to hand over your keys are a bit stricter than "they ask for them". The long and complex law is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents
The RIPA sentences for failure to handover passwords is either 2 years or 5 years. It's 5 years for child indecency cases, but the relevant laws are listed in subsection 7, and it doesn't include The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009. (And that only applied to England, Wales, and NI. It doesn't apply to Scotland.)
It's not clear that most hentai is made illegal by the C&JA2009. See below.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III
(7)Those provisions are—
(a)section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (showing or taking etc an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);
(b)Article 3 of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland);
(c)section 52 or 52A of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (showing or taking etc or possessing an indecent photograph of a child: Scotland);
(d)section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possessing an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);
(e)Article 15 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1847 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland).]
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2/chapter/2
(2)A prohibited image is an image which—
(a)is pornographic,
(b)falls within subsection (6), and
(c)is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(5)“Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/home-news/london-attack...
It'll be interesting in 10-15 years when the US is one of the few countries left that allow unfettered access to encryption, VPNs, secure messaging, etc. How does the saying go? "The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe"
its only a matter of time before the USA outlaws these also. I know the agencies are itching for it. Even though it would be unworkable.
Forced to choose between the agencies and big business who do you think the legislators will choose? Sure they can side with the agencies but if business isn't on-board with that checks will get written and there will be new legislators.
I hope the agencies force the choice. It gives the legislators a chance to do all the things they should have done after Hoover left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say most , but a good proportion is, even possession of it. The catch is that the character has to give the "predominant impression" of being a child, so they can have non-child like features (such as slightly larger breasts, antennae (as was mentioned during the debate) etc.) and still be counted under the law. And you think you can encrypt to get away from it? No chance! If you refuse to hand over your k…
> If you refuse to hand over your keys to an encrypted volume you can face a maximum of 4 years in prison. The requirements for getting you to hand over your keys are a bit stricter than "they ask for them". The long and complex law is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents The RIPA sentences for failure to handover passwords is either 2 years or 5 years. It's 5 years for child indecency cases, bu…
> I'd suggest it could be argued lots of hentai fails (c).
I'm not so sure. Perhaps images that don't display any act of sex taking place, and just nudity or even swimsuit (e.g ecchi) would qualify, but most hentai does display acts of sex taking place. Either way, might the subject, being a "child" hold sway on whether it is considered "disgusting" or not? I'd think it would.
>the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
Yes, this is the part that I was talking about when I talked about breast size and antennae.
Either way I am wholly opposed to such a law, and I think the arguments used to support it are weak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Queen. A withholding of assent could bring a constitutional crisis, but it's possible [1]. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill
"on the advice of her ministers"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an anecdote related to this, there is a law that came into force in the UK in 2009 which made illegal drawings showing fictional characters who appear to be under 18 engaging in sex, or in the presence of sex. A similar law came into force in the United States (the PROTECT act), and it was stricken down by SCOTUS because a clause making illegal drawn pornography turns out (unsurprisingly) to violate the constituti…
People may care about (what others may consider) disgusting speech, or they may find it disgusting themselves but they care because of the principle of free speech, but the problem lies in coming out and saying so. Defending drawn porn of minors is harmful to your career at best — for some it can mean the end of relationships, getting ostracised by friends and family, and being persecuted, slandered, and stalked onli…
So perhaps "people don't care" isn't sufficient and a mistake on my part, though I have spoken to people who say that they are "not concerned" about the topic, despite being rather liberal in terms of freedom of expression otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the protections of civil liberties work for for the times and contexts under which they were formulated, but they are not adapted to evolving technology and culture as frequently as efforts to circumvent them. It's reverse hill climbing via million slippery slopes.
> The problem is that the protections of civil liberties work for for the times and contexts under which they were formulated... The people who wrote the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights survived a time when the most powerful army in the world was marching through their backyards. I have no doubt they had that in mind when they were writing freedoms into law.
What politicians do not understand: - if we are forced to chat unencrypted, terrorists will communicate in "code": "the eagle will fly today" means "attack now!" - terrorists did successful attacks before the internet and before smartphones and do not need encryption - terrorists do harm because they are harmed. Stop harming them and they will leave you alone.
That is a huge oversimplification.
Terrorists do harm because they see a political value in harming others. For proof, look no further than the domestic terrorists who have bombed abortion clinics and shot doctors who worked there, or who have threatened to do same. All while being backed by religious organizations, who are just as culpable for the results.
Sure, these people might not be called terrorists, because the FBI has to abide by laws of free speech, etc., but they are just as much a terrorist as any person looking to wage jihad.
----
See this article for the FBI's explanation of not calling a terrorist a terrorist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-terrorism-label_us_5...