I would presume the law in the U.K. makes allowances for this, but you might note that a lot of images that never come up on your PC or notebook display wind up in the temporary internet files. You have no control over this so far as I know once you access a website. So you could theoretically get pinched for having porn in your computer, and you never saw it at all. I never actually saw any porn in my temporary files though there were some good bikini pics I hadn't seen at the time I accessed the site, from a website that showed Tahitian girls.

Of course, it's unlikely that you'd get porn images from non-x rated websites. And, in any case, you can delete the temporary internet files every time you surf the net.

Sorry to be so glum, but the situation is far worse than most seem to realise, and what makes it all the more depressing is that us Britain's are absolutely helpless against this draconian government. In my Church paper today I read of an honourable man being persecuted in the courts and will end up in jail because he has downloaded child pornography from the Internet. What sort of law have we got into that condems someone for looking at pictures- and just looking at pictures, not a scrap of evidence of anything to do with child abuse whatsoever. Worse, upon conviction he is then treated as a sex offender and in effect serves two sentences and treated just the same as if he actually did abuse a child. Just another point- deleting the files will not get you out of it, although the only child pornography on the internet are Police stings anyway, while ALL images of children have been effectively censored by the ISP's anyway! Indeed it would appear that much of the adult material has gone the same way and is no longer available. As to the current law which is going down the same path, the position in the UK is about the same as the 2003 law which made possession the crime - and the one which has caused all of this unfair misjustice, and it is this law which will be introduced into Parliament in the next session. I just hope that the Adult fraternity will not stand for it in the same way as child pornography has done, and get rid of this draconian despots once and for all. Unfortunately it will come too late for me as well.

Cheers

Quillman UK

From the first time, I went on the web, I assumed that privacy probably does not exist. What surprised me was how easily stuff that appalled me appeared on the screen. Because I was in a public library, that shocked me because I was not looking for pornography at the public library. I was simply learning how to surf the web. It does seem that one can wander over a line and not know it. Still, for the most part, I have not found much that offends me since I mastered some basic skills in surfing. The limits you can set on your search engine do help.

At the risk of seeming paranoid (instead of actually being so, which is closer to the truth) I should like to point out that always using the same proxy can be nearly as compromising as never using one at all. That is why many of these programs build a list of proxies and cycle through it randomly.

Using the same proxy all the time merely moves your tracks from one location to another, which does not greatly complicate following them. Using proxies randomly selected from a reasonably large set breaks your tracks into small chunks that are more difficult to follow.

See what unexpected benefits come from having been a government contractor?

.

Patient (imported) wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:30 pm At the risk of seeming paranoid (instead of actually being so, which is closer to the truth) I should like to point out that always using the same proxy can be nearly as compromising as never using one at all. That is why many of these programs build a list of proxies and cycle through it randomly.

Using the same proxy all the time merely moves your tracks from one location to another, which does not greatly complicate following them. Using proxies randomly selected from a reasonably large set breaks your tracks into small chunks that are more difficult to follow.

See what unexpected benefits come from having been a government contractor?

.Smile! Thanks, all too complicated for this old man.

you'll haveta forgive my ingorance, but when it comes to the legalities / practicalities of computer use i'm a bit of an idiot...

my main concerns / worries are:

under the new law(s) what will constitute 'violent pornography' ? and

if this includes fantasy stories as well as pics, etc, if these are deleted / removed from your machine before the new law(s) come into effect then can you still be prosecuted ?

i'm really hacked off at the thought that I may have to cancel my membership with here, BME and IAM because of some prats in the government!! It means I would lose what has become a lifeline to myself and other regarding interests that society as a whole would regard as 'deviant' or 'abnormal'. So if I have understood it all correctly then I got 2 choices: bascially either remove all traces (if possible) of my involvement with these groups or trash my existing machine and start from scratch and like so many others go back to sitting alone with no way of to anyone else with the same interests. what a truly miserable thought!

I also wonder if I could be prosecuted for possessing pictures of my own genital play? If anyone can shed some more light / good news it would be really appreciated. xx

...

thefraj (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:34 am it will be illegal to possess pornographic images depicting scenes of extreme sexual violence. This would include, for example, material featuring violence that appears to be life threatening.

Source (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/n ... n-outlawed

)

Under this definition of "

thefraj (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:34 am violence that appears to be life threatening

" I would say that some forms of genital mod/mutilation could easily be considered "life threatening". And whatsmore, the generally accepted definition of pornography is:

Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. Therefore, it doesn't take a wild stretch of the imagination to realize that the EA stories section can - in the most extreme of cases - be considered illegal.

This is towards the bottom end of the 'moral slope

thefraj (imported) wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:43 am (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/show

post.php?p=61172&postcount=12)' that I coined a few posts back, and I'm not sure the government will go that far. But we cannot discount that possibility! With such wishy-washily subjective definitions - (left open to interpretation, and conjecture) - we cannot be sure how the government will choose to wield these new powers or why certain people may become targets.

It is possible, that photos of a persons own mods or castration might be "creating and distributing violent pornography". :shakemitk I don't know, but I certainly don't want to find out.

If I were Prime Minister, this is absolutely not the way I would encourage people to do things. This was an ill-planned, knee-jerk reaction to a terrible crime. And in the process it will rape our freedoms

I should think that the British version of the ACLU (whichever that may be), would challenge this in the local courts, and if needed, to the European Courts. Hopefully, someone, somewhere, will not, singly or collectively, need a monacle for their navel(s) to see what they're doing, and strike this horse shit down.....

kristoff wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:39 pm I should think that the British version of the ACLU (whichever that may be), would challenge this in the local courts, and if needed, to the European Courts. Hopefully, someone, somewhere, will not, singly or collectively, need a monacle for their navel(s) to see what they're doing, and strike this horse shit down.....

Does the UK have a constitution that protects rights such as Freedom of Speech, or is that determined by whomever is in power at the time? How fortunate for us in the U.S. that our forefathers had wisdom enough to adopt the Bill of Rights.

Slammr (imported) wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:20 pm Does the UK have a constitution that protects rights such as Freedom of Speech, or is that determined by whomever is in power at the time? How fortunate for us in the U.S. that our forefathers had wisdom enough to adopt the Bill of Rights.

And how unfortunate for the USA that GWB chooses to ignore, and in many cases actually subvert, not only the Bill of Rights but also the Constitution.