Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 5,060
- Location
- In the ether
But then surely the person / people that classified them have broken the law?
Police set to step up hacking of home PCs
- Thread starter riddlermarc
- Start date
But then surely the person / people that classified them have broken the law?
So it doesn't have to actually do it just make it look like it :/
BEsides it;s consentual why shouldn;t they be allowed to do it?
It does say
as well. Although we are getting off topic here. I do agree it has the potential to be misused but I don't think they would dare to.
Tefal said:
Because torture is illegal, just like you can't consent for someone to kill you
Last edited:
I would presume you wouldn't. You'd need a system with Virtualization and EM64T enabled (the latter by default, the former via a BIOS option). VMWare can run a 64-bit guest from a 32-bit host, so I see no reason why VirtualBox should be any different (unless of course, they just haven't done that yet - in which case get the free VMWare Server).
Correct, they wanted to shut down a fake necro website called necrobabes according to the discussion in the commons.
The government make laws based on what they do or don't like instead of actual harm sadly.
It truly is a pointless law, there are many classified videos containing material such as fake rape and necrophillia and real scenes of bestiality, what this is supposed to achieve I don't know.
Aka we don't like it so we are going to ban it.
Last edited:
Because torture is illegal, just like you can't consent for someone to kill you
This law only says you can't film it. and most BDSM comes well beyond what this government would call torture. (ie you couldn't do it to a pow). And it says t has to look like torture there could be no physical contact whatsoever.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 4,220
- Location
- Seattle area, USA
Fair do's, I never knew that, that's pretty intriguing; I only run 32 bit OS's on Virtualbox and VMware. I use VB for home and VM for work, and I've never got around to ever using a 64 bit OS for either of them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,701
- Location
- Cheshire
Difference is, you have to abide by the laws, whereas you dont have to use Windows or Microsoft products at all. People would find out within hours if it ever happened and from that point on all confidence would be lost in their products and it would die a death. Which is why they'll never do it.
BDSM has always been illegal so it makes sense to make BDSM videos illegal. You cannot consent to anything that would amount to assault. Therefore pretty much any act of BDSM is assault, which you can be prosecuted for. Should rape videos be legal?
lol @ comparing bondage to rape
Well s&m videos have always been illegal to produce, but what is making them illegal to possess supposed to do when all evidence from real life and physciatrists say watching dodgy pornography doesn't cause people to act it out in real life? The funny thing is, some of the things mentioned under the act are actually legal to do in real life, but now illegal to watch, so all the people previously just watching it are now more likely to actually commit the act, thanks to this new law, hilarious. History has shown that making these types of porn illegal increases the number of sexual offences commited, but the government can't let facts get in the way of morals now can they?
Last edited:
Since you asked about the spelling, it's paedophiles. The correct spelling is clear from the root words with a bit of thought.
Your comment worries me. It's too much of the "whatever they do is OK if it catches the bogeymen the media talks about" idea.
These measures are not about gathering further evidence on people who the police already have evidence on. These measures are about warrantless surveillance. That serves two purposes. Firstly, it can be used on a larger scale to trawl for people guilty of something in order to get better arrest numbers. Secondly, it can be used on a smaller scale to find anything usable on a person who the authorities (or just one or two people in the right position) want arrested.
Portraying it solely as a weapon against today's bogeymen is politically useful, but not true.
It's even worse than that, because the law is (in my opinion deliberately) undefined and may therefore apply to...who knows what?
As usual for the current government, the law was passed under the cover of lies about what it was. They passed it off as being about videos of women being raped and maimed, in order to suppress any dissent from people who'd looked past the "it stops the bogeymen!" facade.
And yet most people still take their lies at face value. It's about stopping <insert bogeyman here>, so that's OK. Whatever it is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 5,060
- Location
- In the ether
no.
You have not researched the act properly. You have read some official lies about it and believed them. That's not the same thing at all.
For a start, the law makes it very clear that there doesn't have to be any actual anything. That's one of the few things it does make clear.
You haven't even looked at police reactions to the law, because the police have officially stated that no-one has told even them what the law means. Nobody knows what the law means. It's going to be determined by precedent in court. Whatever porn you have might be illegal - you can only tell by being taken to court charged with possession of extreme pornography, and you can imagine the harm that will do to you regardless of whether or not you were found guilty.
It's an undefined catch-all law from people who think that bona fide snuff films are available on the shelf in shops. Seriously, that's the sort of person behind this law. They want all porn outlawed, but this is the best they can get at the moment.
EDIT:
And note the most important clause they managed to slide in:
I didn't know they'd got that one in. This is from people who think that all pornography (other than textual porn scenes in mainstream books aimed at women, which are always excluded from consideration) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene nature. Including some of the sigs on this forum, some of the advertising used on the OcUK page, etc, etc.
Last edited:
Hang on a minute. If someone is technically good enough to run a criminal organisation through the internet im sure they are going to be savvy enough to run a hardware firewall. I'd like to see them get into my pc nevermind a criminal mastermind's.
How about putting resources into proper law and order. Sure, they can find out what i've been looking at but thats about as far as they'll get.
How about putting resources into proper law and order. Sure, they can find out what i've been looking at but thats about as far as they'll get.
Why are you so keen on being able to watch someone get beaten up during sex anyway?