irishproduce wrote: » Beginning to think it's made up as part of the upcoming petitions in legislation changes.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » Young lady on with Matt Cooper on the tonight show has in solidarity with those affected by revenge porn, posted pics of herself on social media in see through underwear.
Topgear on Dave wrote: » Please tell me your joking here?
robinbird wrote: » Yes. Exactly.. But now they have got all the political parties involved and the Gardai are tracking down and will be prosecuting those that looked at their private porn for free. Politicians and newspapers all on board with the outrage.
Padre_Pio wrote: » Didn't 4Chan do a take on this? Posted a load of bullsh*t content about a woman who had topless photos leaked, and encouraged women to "show solidarity" by posting toplessm pics online. Then made a compilation of all the gullible women for all and sundry to see.
BIG GUNZ wrote: » Why was my comment deleted? To repeat, nudes of Irish girls have been traded on 4chan since forever. This is nothing new.
[Deleted User] wrote: » And finally something is being done about it.
bigpink wrote: » Well the sharing of underage is sick But the porn stars and over 18s can't complain if they are putting pics online
Feisar wrote: » This is pretty much it. There seem to be a number of issues coming to the fore here under the same umbrella of victim: 1. Underage stuff - sick/criminal/etc 2. Lads sharing pics women sent them - Grade A asshole act however what is the crime? Who owns the copyright of the image? 3. Only fans content being shared - A copyright issue I presume? Or is this classed as a violation of trust somehow? If a punter pays for a private video surely they own the content and can distribute as they wish?
Feisar wrote: » 2. Lads sharing pics women sent them - Grade A asshole act however what is the crime? Who owns the copyright of the image?
3. Only fans content being shared - A copyright issue I presume? Or is this classed as a violation of trust somehow? If a punter pays for a private video surely they own the content and can distribute as they wish?
seamus wrote: » In that case, it's more than copyright, it's a breach of privacy. There's an implicit understanding that the picture is for the use/view of the recipient only, and it becomes a breach of privacy to show that to anyone else. But you can see it's wishy-washy, hard to prosecute and the penalties are pretty small if the subject in the photos is an adult. This is why there are calls to make "revenge porn" a specific criminal act; that is the deliberate distribution of private explicit material beyond its originally intended audience.
Padre_Pio wrote: » Take away the porn aspect and replace it with anything else. Your credit card information is stolen and published An artist has copies of work taken distributed without their consent. A software developer has a program that's pirated and distributed. Someone takes pictures of your child from Facebook and puts them onto some Shutterstock website. Either way, people have access to information they shouldn't have, and that should be illegal. Regardless of the content, regardless of how you feel about the content creators. The world is online. Good luck getting a job, or bills, or services, or shopping, or chatting with friends, or conducting business without an online presence. Everyone should have a right to online privacy,regardless of who you are or what content you produce.
Mister Vain wrote: » It's scary to think where this sort of thing could go when deep fakes become easier to make. You could see yourself in a porno some day.
Limpy wrote: » Women shows her snatch online for a few buck's is surprised a pic gets leaked. Spare me.
Blitzkrieg It For Hitler! wrote: » Imagine being a simp and paying money for pictures and knowing they're now freely available online? Ouch!
banie01 wrote: » https://twitter.com/HMcEntee/status/1329754918249492481?s=19 Seriously starting to look that way, another day passes our Justice Minister jumps on the bandwagon. Yet there is still no actual 1st hand reporting or evidence of this mass leak as yet? There 100% needs to be better legislation around revenge porn and other outing and sharing of private images. That needs to be separated from upset Huns complaining that their paid content was shared. Good legislation does not come from moral panic, much like white van kidnappers, satanic creches and those Romanian hair dying kiddie snatchers? Where is the actual meat to this story?
Faugheen wrote: » Well the plan was to pass this bill through the Committee on December 1st before all of this came to light (and indeed still is) so there’s no ‘bandwagon jumping’ really going on. This legislation was drafted by Brendan Howlin in 2017. Both McEntee and Howlin met about this a couple of weeks ago and it’s going to come before the committee next month anyway. The plan was always to have this done and dusted by the end of the year. Did you actually do any research on this or did you just see this to have a pop at a minister when there are files of hundreds of thousands of images involving thousands of women which have been passed around without their consent? I know many men here are just going to go down the route of ‘shur they shouldn’t be taking the photos anyway’ but of course they would think it’s fair game for lads to share them around as they wish without the woman’s consent.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Isn't the purpose of Only Fans to use your body and looks for likes?
banie01 wrote: » Onlyfans yes. But the alleged leaked material includes material from other sources shared privately and personal photos of claimed underage girls. All of which would seriously ramp up the criminality of sharing the underage photos. Currently sharing the other photos onlyfans and the revenge porn that is claimed to have leaked as part of the "hack" aren't necessarily a criminal act. The proposed legislation will make it so. Legislation is certainly needed and it's long overdue. If FG had taken action when Howlin 1st proposed the bill, it'd be 2yrs on the books at this point.
EileenDunne wrote: » Snapchat is not private. If I have a facebook profile with 10 friends and I post a pic of my dick and it spreads around the internet, who's going to have sympathy for me? No evidence there's any from google drive or anything anyways.
EileenDunne wrote: » Yes and no. But anyone can screenshot. Snapchat even tell you if someone screenshots so it's not like it's a private chat. In any case, it's not different to being on facebook. No one seemed to have a problem with the private whatsapp chats where the lads in UCD were upto naughty stuff.