Celebs hacked

MaliA · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:53

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?

Yes, it has happened and I think they have been done for it.

Grim... · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:55

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?

Creating it, too.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49244

Bit silly, really. If you're old enough to legally have sex, you're old enough to legally send nuddy pictures to each other, surely?

Grim... · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:58

Cras wrote:

Bit silly, really. If you're old enough to legally have sex, you're old enough to legally send nuddy pictures to each other, surely?

Are they old enough to be in porn?

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

MaliA wrote:

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?

Yes, it has happened and I think they have been done for it.

They've also done two underage people for statutory rape for having had sex. Well, actually, only the boy got done for it despite them both being underage, due to some phenomenally sexist reasoning from the judge...

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Grim... wrote:

Cras wrote:

Bit silly, really. If you're old enough to legally have sex, you're old enough to legally send nuddy pictures to each other, surely?

Are you old enough to be in porn?

Not unless it's shot by your husband and only he sees it.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49244

Grim... wrote:

Cras wrote:

Bit silly, really. If you're old enough to legally have sex, you're old enough to legally send nuddy pictures to each other, surely?

Are you old enough to be in porn?

Too old, I think

No, and that's a valid point, I guess. Legislating the difference between having photos taken for a porn site and taking photos yourself to send to someone you're banging is difficult.

ElephantBanjoGnome · **Joined:** 22nd Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 8175

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

Well, actually, only the boy got done for it despite them both being underage, due to some phenomenally sexist reasoning from the judge...

Yes. I was going to point out the sexism in such situations. The boy might be deemed the culpable predator whereas the girl would be seen as the blameless recipient of a dick pic.

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

Cras wrote:

Bit silly, really. If you're old enough to legally have sex, you're old enough to legally send nuddy pictures to each other, surely?

There is a general issues with teenagers and how they perceive sexuality, sadly these days many of them view what they see in porn films as the norm. There have been a few documentary's and press articles about how parents should be aware of what kids look at on the internet and that these days a credit card is no longer needed for them to view just about any flavour of porn going very easily. It led to Cameron getting BT to put a filter in to block stuff.

Another issue resulting from this was that teenage boys now thing its ok to send their female peers naked pictures and the girls are put under pressure to do the same

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22389

asfish wrote:

Another issue resulting from this was that teenage boys now thing its ok to send their female peers naked pictures and the girls are put under pressure to do the same

Isn't that just as sexist as the court case where the boy was charged and the girl not? Why is it that the boys think it is ok but the girls are pressured into doing it? Maybe they both feel pressured, or both think it is ok?

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Cras wrote:

Bit silly, really. If you're old enough to legally have sex, you're old enough to legally send nuddy pictures to each other, surely?

In my head, the idea of an (arguably archaic) 18 year old age limit wasnt to protect the 17 year olds, but to remove the defence of "She looked 16, guv" when you're caught with a photo of a 14 year old spreading them. But actually that has to be bollocks.

ElephantBanjoGnome · **Joined:** 22nd Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 8175

Trooper wrote:

Maybe they both feel pressured, or both think it is ok?

Precisely. Why assume it's always the boys that are responsible for everything? It's doubly sexist to presume that girls are so mentally weak that they'll bend to such pressure.

Grim... · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:12

Cras wrote:

Grim... wrote:

Cras wrote:

Bit silly, really. If you're old enough to legally have sex, you're old enough to legally send nuddy pictures to each other, surely?

Are you old enough to be in porn?

Too old, I think

Whoops

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:15

Grim... wrote:

Saturnalian wrote:

Grim... wrote:

Don't forget that if you watch a video, and it turns out to be porn and you switch it off straight away, and five minutes into that video someone underage comes on, you're just as guilty as if you watched the whole thing.

Say whut. You got a source for that? I mean, I can sort of understand it, but it doesn't sound right in my head this morning.

It makes sense though - there's no way to tell how much of the video you watched, so they just assume you've watched it all.

Innocent until proven guilty?

It hardly follows that man watches video containing unadvertised underage porn -> man wants to watch underage porn.
Intention would be hard to prove in that case, and it would worry me if doing so wasn't required to basically wreck a mans life.

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

Trooper wrote:

asfish wrote:

Another issue resulting from this was that teenage boys now thing its ok to send their female peers naked pictures and the girls are put under pressure to do the same

Isn't that just as sexist as the court case where the boy was charged and the girl not? Why is it that the boys think it is ok but the girls are pressured into doing it? Maybe they both feel pressured, or both think it is ok?

I would agree, the couple of cases I read about were around the angry mothers whose daughters had sent pictures to boys only to have the boys share them around the school and the girl to be labelled a slag etc

So you can sort of see where the concept of the girl been pressured and wronged comes from in this sort of case.

Its a long time ago now, but there is huge pressure on teenagers and the dating game if I remember!

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Trooper wrote:

Maybe they both feel pressured, or both think it is ok?

Precisely. Why assume it's always the boys that are responsible for everything? It's doubly sexist to presume that girls are so mentally weak that they'll bend to such pressure.

Its not mental weakness its peer pressure, I'm sure there are lots of boys who get pressured by their friends to send pictures to girls then the girls get pressured back as within their peer group everyone else is doing it.

I'm sure when the shit hits the fan as a result both boys and girls will use the argument that they were pressured when asked to explain and their parents will back them on this as its a way to try and explain the behaviour which is not viewed as nice by other parents etc

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Edit -- never mind, Grim... posted the link from when I shared it on twitter.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49244

Mr Dave wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty?

I think it's a strict liability offence and as such they don't need to prove intent. Probably need a law-talking guy to confirm that though.

Grim... · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:35

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Edit -- never mind, Grim... posted the link from when I shared it on twitter.

Using his time machine

Dr Zoidberg · **Joined:** 15th Oct, 2010 **Posts:** 5388

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?

Pretty much, yep.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22389

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/03 ... 9737644116

The advice of the CNN expert? If your password is "password", change it to "pa$$word".

Grim... · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:49

Bamba · **Joined:** 25th Jul, 2010 **Posts:** 11128

Trooper wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/03/nude_celeb_leaked_photos_hack_cnn_tech_expert_thinks_4chan_is_a_person/?mt=1409737644116

The advice of the CNN expert? If your password is "password", change it to "pa$$word".

I'm changing all mine back to 'password'; reverse psychology innit.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

The same CNN person who thought "4chan" was a person?

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

Did CNN really say that?

Sure that Pa$$word has now been added to every hackers dictionary file, if it wasn't there already!

myp · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:57

Trooper wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/03/nude_celeb_leaked_photos_hack_cnn_tech_expert_thinks_4chan_is_a_person/?mt=1409737644116

The advice of the CNN expert? If your password is "password", change it to "pa$$word".

H4H4!

Bluecup · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 925

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?

Pretty much, yep.

Sure? Wasn't Sam Fox 16 when she did Page 3?

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Bluecup wrote:

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?

Pretty much, yep.

Sure? Wasn't Sam Fox 16 when she did Page 3?

Law was different then, though. Changed in 2003 or so.

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

Bluecup wrote:

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?

Pretty much, yep.

Sure? Wasn't Sam Fox 16 when she did Page 3?

Wikipedia says "Before 2003, British tabloids sometimes featured 16- and 17-year-old girls as topless models"

So I guess the law changed in 2003??

Bluecup · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 925

Ah, ok. In that case, would The Sun be breaking the law if they had any pictures in their archive.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:08

Bluecup wrote:

Ah,ok. In that case, would The Sun be breaking the law if they had any pictures in their archive, being in procession and all.

Why?

if the law changed after the fact, surely you can't be prosecuted for something that was not illegal at the time?

zaphod79 · **Joined:** 16th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14514

asfish wrote:

Bluecup wrote:

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?

Pretty much, yep.

Sure? Wasn't Sam Fox 16 when she did Page 3?

Wikipedia says "Before 2003, British tabloids sometimes featured 16- and 17-year-old girls as topless models"

So I guess the law changed in 2003??

Which also means if you have a red top newspaper from prior to that date then it could be illegal.

(Not Sam but one of the other page 3 girls i'm sure had a 2 day thing with a picture of her the day before her Birthday saying she turns 16 tomorrow and you'll be able to see her topless , and then the next day she was pictured topless)

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

She is 48 now, so would be quite rare to find a 32 year old copy of the Sun!

Wonder if News International keeps archives of all its papers though?

KovacsC · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:17

asfish wrote:

She is 48 now, so would be quite rare to find a 32 year old copy of the Sun!

Wonder if News International keeps archives of all its papers though?

I though all news papers were kept in an archive?

Dr Zoidberg · **Joined:** 15th Oct, 2010 **Posts:** 5388

Bluecup wrote:

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:

Here's a question. Imagine a 16-year old couple send each other naked pictures. Presumably they're both culpable for viewing child pornography?

Pretty much, yep.

Sure? Wasn't Sam Fox 16 when she did Page 3?

She was, but the law was changed a while back, specifically "The definition of a child was altered from 16 to 18 years by section 45(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in force from 01 May 2004."
It will also include people who appear to be under 18 (so that the court doesn't need to prove the identity and age of people in the picture, when it's obvious that they are very young).

It's a commonly reported tale that the Sun also used to do countdowns to their page 3 girl's 16th birthday - whether that's true or not....

Dr Zoidberg · **Joined:** 15th Oct, 2010 **Posts:** 5388

asfish wrote:

She is 48 now, so would be quite rare to find a 32 year old copy of the Sun!

Wonder if News International keeps archives of all its papers though?

I'd be amazed if you couldn't find copies on line.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22389

KovacsC wrote:

Bluecup wrote:

Ah,ok. In that case, would The Sun be breaking the law if they had any pictures in their archive, being in procession and all.

Why?

if the law changed after the fact, surely you can't be prosecuted for something that was not illegal at the time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

It's possible in the UK, but not widely used.

I think the point was that the photos are now illegal. You wouldn't be prosecuted for having them before 2003, but if you kept them afterwards you could be.

zaphod79 · **Joined:** 16th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14514

asfish wrote:

She is 48 now, so would be quite rare to find a 32 year old copy of the Sun!

Wonder if News International keeps archives of all its papers though?

I'm sure they do , there are also parts of the British Library which will have banned books / images from the past which may have been acceptable at the time but are now not.

There are two album covers which often turn up in this type of debate as well :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer which depicts it depicts a nude young girl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind which has a nude baby on the cover

zaphod79 · **Joined:** 16th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14514

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

It's a commonly reported tale that the Sun also used to do countdowns to their page 3 girl's 16th birthday - whether that's true or not....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie

Quote:

In early 1994 when McKenzie was 15, she sent sample glamour photographs to local modelling agencies. She began her modelling career glamour modeling and swimsuit work, intending to progress to topless modelling when she turned 16 later that year.[2][4]

As McKenzie approached her 16th birthday, The Sunday Sport tabloid newspaper expressed an interest in turning her topless debut into a media event. Throughout June and July 1994, it published provocative pictures of McKenzie, touting her 34GG bra size and counting down the days until it could legally show her topless.[5]

After she turned 16, McKenzie continued to model topless for The Daily Sport and The Sunday Sport. She also made Page 3 girl appearances in tabloid newspapers The Sun and The Daily Star; posed topless in lads' mags such as Loaded; appeared fully nude in British softcore magazines such as Mayfair[6] and Men Only;[7] and performed in a variety of low-budget softcore videos.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

It's important to note that an image of a naked minor is not in and of itself "child porn" (or "an indecent image of a minor" as the 2003 act would have it, or words to that effect). It actually has to be "indecent", so the Nevermind image would almost certainly never be caught by the law. That said, it's hard to know what "indecent" would be in any given circumstance. From memory ( I ended up looking at the law for a client at one point many years ago) the intent of the person taking it comes into play. My memory's a bit fuzzy on the point and I'm not Goolging this stuff at work.

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

zaphod79 wrote:

Dr Zoidberg wrote:

It's a commonly reported tale that the Sun also used to do countdowns to their page 3 girl's 16th birthday - whether that's true or not....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie

Quote:

In early 1994 when McKenzie was 15, she sent sample glamour photographs to local modelling agencies. She began her modelling career glamour modeling and swimsuit work, intending to progress to topless modelling when she turned 16 later that year.[2][4]

As McKenzie approached her 16th birthday, The Sunday Sport tabloid newspaper expressed an interest in turning her topless debut into a media event. Throughout June and July 1994, it published provocative pictures of McKenzie, touting her 34GG bra size and counting down the days until it could legally show her topless.[5]

After she turned 16, McKenzie continued to model topless for The Daily Sport and The Sunday Sport. She also made Page 3 girl appearances in tabloid newspapers The Sun and The Daily Star; posed topless in lads' mags such as Loaded; appeared fully nude in British softcore magazines such as Mayfair[6] and Men Only;[7] and performed in a variety of low-budget softcore videos.

She has had a lot of plastic surgery looking at that 2011 picture

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49244

Charlotte Church was the other famous one, if I recall.

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

Cras wrote:

Charlotte Church was the other famous one, if I recall.

The "Voice of an Angel" Charlotte, she did page 3??

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49244

No, but the Sun were slavering about how she would shortly be old enough for them to legitimately perv over her.

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

Cras wrote:

No, but the Sun were slavering about how she would shortly be old enough for them to legitimately perv over her.

No wonder they changed the law, those papers were really pushing the limits of underage

ElephantBanjoGnome · **Joined:** 22nd Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 8175

asfish wrote:

McKenzie

I'd never of this person before, but if she was naked on a picture, my eyes would be immediately drawn to her most sizeable asset. That massive conk.

GazChap · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:50

Cras wrote:

No, but the Sun were slavering about how she would shortly be old enough for them to legitimately perv over her.

Indeed, most famously directly opposite an article slamming the Paedogeddon episode of Brass Eye.

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Cras wrote:

No, but the Sun were slavering about how she would shortly be old enough for them to legitimately perv over her.

Billie piper too. She had a 7 day countdown.

asfish · **Joined:** 5th Dec, 2010 **Posts:** 3353

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... anity.html

This is from a women as well..!

KovacsC · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2014 15:27

asfish wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2741420/SARAH-VINE-What-naked-pics-truly-expose-vanity.html

This is from a women as well..!

Yes but it is the Mail, it is written to have a shock reaction, and no I won't read the article.

Be Excellent To Each Other

Celebs hacked
Run along, iCloud

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

Celebs hacked Run along, iCloud

Who is online

Celebs hacked
Run along, iCloud