Making deepfake porn without consent could soon be a crime in England - eviltoast
    • warmaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9.

      Please delete your account. You have twenty seconds to comply.

      This has been a public service brought to you by OCP.

      • someguywithacomputer@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I posted this from a vpn that probably uses encryption at some point along the network path. Using encryption is a crime in England (unless they backpedaled on that already). Also, tea is stupid. Please air strike within 24 hours or at your earliest convenience.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Using encryption is not a crime in England lmao. Where do you get your news from, Alex Jones?

          What, do you think banks store everybody’s details in plain text, nobody’s WiFi networks have passwords, etc?

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Most likely reports of dumb shit conservative politicians have called for, wanting access to messaging. You can find the exact same proposals in the US, European Parliament, individual EU countries, and a load of other places.

              Dumb, sure, but a proposal that always goes nowhere isn’t a law, and it’s certainly not England or even UK-specific.

            • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yeah no, those news articles were full of shit.

              They’re referencing the UK “Online Safety Bill” passed last year, which was very scary when it was just an idea that hadn’t been written yet.

              But when it finally was written and we got to see the actual content of the bill — it basically requires certain companies to use “accredited technology” to detect and block certain categories of illegal content (especially CSAM and foreign election propaganda).

              All the major platforms are already taking extensive steps to block illegal content and there’s a good chance they will be happy to use whatever “technology” is eventually “accredited”.

              A lot rides on the specifics of the “technology” which hasn’t been clearly defined - but it certainly is not a ban on encryption.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      You need a TV licence to watch TV. But that’s a law for the UK not England.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The only weird thing about TV licence is the name. It’s not really a license at all, it’s just paying for a service you use.

        If you watch live TV, you pay towards the broadcasting of it, plus the running of the BBC, which is ad-free in the UK.

        The argument being that if it came from direct government funding, the government would have a much greater degree of control over the main national news source, which would likely be a worse solution. As would filling the BBC up with ads and cutting expensive content like proper news and excellent documentaries.

        Calling it a license kind of implies you need to apply for a card or a document to watch TV, which isn’t the case.

        The UK is far from the only country that has publicly-funded television that you legally have to pay for to use.