Online Safety Bill

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Paul

I feel I should point out this is not unique to iPhones, I have it activated on my Android phones, and can log into my google account to locate them.

You can even get one for your dog: pit pat

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Must be very lucky travelled more times than I recall ( must be well over a hundred times) trans Atlantic and across the States never lost any luggage. Unlike a trip to Belgium case went to India

You’re lucky then, every time I’ve flown to either MSP or SFO from AMS my luggage has been lost for 2-3 days to the point I now put three days worth of clothing into my carry on.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

You’re lucky then, every time I’ve flown to either MSP or SFO from AMS my luggage has been lost for 2-3 days to the point I now put three days worth of clothing into my carry on.

Haven't any idea if this is the reason but I always went business class . Belgium wasn't, never risked it again

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

How much are what ? Phones ?

Air tag trackers.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Air tag trackers.

£20+ each.



Nonsense posts also removed, seriously ...

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Paul

£20+ each

Non-Apple alternatives are also available for around half that from the usual online stores (and are arguably better as they have a hole so you can thread them on a keyring)

[RichardCoulter]

Interesting, thanks guys

[RichardCoulter]

Under the Online Safety Act, which was passed last year, the sharing of deepfakes was made illegal.

The new law will make it an offence for someone to create a sexually explicit deepfake - even if they have no intention to share it but "purely want to cause alarm, humiliation, or distress to the victim", the MoJ said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-688230...e%20MoJ%20said.

If they have no intention to share it then how is it going to "cause alarm, humiliation, or distress to the victim" (or anyone).

You would have to share it to do that.

Originally Posted by Paul

If they have no intention to share it then how is it going to "cause alarm, humiliation, or distress to the victim" (or anyone).

You would have to share it to do that.

I suspect there is some attempt here to differentiate between pictures made privately between consenting adults, as opposed to non-consenting. You could presumably make something on your computer and show the screen to someone by way of a threat without actually ‘sharing’ it in legal terms.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-688230...e%20MoJ%20said.

From reports I heard ,only half listening, lawyers think that proving this would be very hard . More window dressing perhaps

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

I suspect there is some attempt here to differentiate between pictures made privately between consenting adults, as opposed to non-consenting. You could presumably make something on your computer and show the screen to someone by way of a threat without actually ‘sharing’ it in legal terms.

Maybe it's also designed to deal with situations where someone creates material and then goes on to threaten to share it or show it to somebody.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Maybe it's also designed to deal with situations where someone creates material and then goes on to threaten to share it or show it to somebody.

It’s definitely designed to criminalise the threatening to share, yes. It seems also designed not to criminalise the making-of for consensual purposes.

Sharing explicit pictures without consent is surely already illegal anyway ?

[jonbxx]

Digital image creation is a surprisingly broad definition. If you download a digital image, in the eyes of the law, once it is viewed, it has been ‘created’ by converting ones and zeroes into the image. This is how people with currently illegal content on their hard drives are convicted, even if they did not create the content themselves in the traditional sense.