In “Only Exploitation” the UK’s All Party Parliamentary Group on Commercial Sexual Exploitation report on the webcamming trade, their recommendations include: “Make it a criminal offence for online platforms to enable or profit from commercial live streaming of pornography and prostitution”. However, without platforms to provide the interface for sex-workers to offer video services, hundreds of thousands of UK tax-paying women will have to choose between: providing riskier in-person services putting them at greater danger of male violence; or closing legitimate businesses, and being reduced to poverty and welfare dependency. This proposed criminalisation is predicated on the inherently flawed ideology that: “all pornography is violence against all women”. By which rationale, private individuals’ recordings of consensual adult sexual experiences are violence against all women. These assumptions also ignore all filmed gay, lesbian, or queer sexual relationships; and erase women’s agency, autonomy, and pleasure in female domination.

As predicted: UK Parliamentarians are agitating for mandatory “Spyware” on all phones, computers, and tablets: on the pretext of detecting Indecent Images of Children (CSAM). This might sound like a laudable objective: “The campaign asks for a requirement in primary legislation that the operating systems of phones, tablets and laptops sold in the UK block child sexual abuse material on the device; scope limited to that material, with any change needing a vote of Parliament; independent testing before and after deployment, with the results published; and a criminal offence for any other use. Apple, Google and Meta already run on-device software that recognises and blurs nudity, including inside encrypted messages, as an optional setting for children’s accounts.” However, this is state-sponsored device-level surveillance of every connected device owner’s photos, videos, and livestreams. That means the government is sifting through legal, consensual, adult nudes in every owner’s photo gallery, emails, and messages using fallible technology. Apple’s new UK terms and conditions already include being restricted, suspended, or banned from using Apple “Software or Services”. The implications for freedom of expression, to freely send and receive information, might lead to self-censorship at best; and slippage towards total client-side scanning (looking at everything on a user’s phone) at worst. This is a simply unacceptable intrusion into individuals’ liberties. This should be of concern to everyone, from victims of sexual violence in possession of evidence of their assaults; adult-content creators, whether sex workers, or amateurs filming consensual adult liaisons; and consumers of legal adult content.

They’re coming for camming. I understand from an official source that the @BBFC are anticipated to be designated as the official auditor to monitor live adult webcam streams in real-time to detect the commission of priority offences. Censorship requires surveillance for enforcement. This has incalculable implications for freedom of expression, privacy, surveillance, sex-workers’s rights, platforms, and consumers. Criminal penalties: Individual members of senior management of platforms can face 2 years imprisonment for failure to comply. Sex workers can face 5 years imprisonment for some of the ill-defined “extreme pornography” offences. Consumers could face 5 years imprisonment for encouraging those offences.

Clare McGlynn acknowledges that Ofcom are unlikely to provide guidance for services' obligations on, for example, the recently commenced offences under the Crime and Policing Act 2026 for at least another 18 months. 18 months. This uncertainty has already led to legitimate tax-paying business publishing legal content to close down, often returning creators to poverty, or putting them at risk of in-person male violence. Meanwhile, these offences are still enforceable by police, and any future guidance would not be binding on a court deciding such content's legality. Furthermore, extraterritorial publication could still be prosecuted under Perrin. Link to Clare McGlynn's oral evidence here: Link to the decision in Perrin here:

Oral evidence (including Clare McGlynn's) on The Online Safety Act's "implementation and impact" before Parliament's Communications and Digital Committee will start at 2:30pm GMT, and can be viewed live here:

I see that Clare McGlynn has said about the Crime and Policing Act 2026 offences: “These new pornography laws are targeting the content on mainstream porn sites, which normalise and minimise violence against women and girls. The target is the sort of material where ‘Daddy’ creeps into the bedroom of his very young-looking daughter and starts having sex with her, on the basis that this is legitimising incest. The law is also targeting material such as ‘4-foot-6’ porn – this is the average height of a 10-year-old girl – which sends a message that it’s acceptable to find sex with children sexually arousing, minimising the harms of child sexual abuse.” I also note that she shall be giving oral evidence from 2:30pm tomorrow on the implementation and impact of the Online Safety Act, before the Communications and Digital Committee. I shall be watching keenly, as you can too, here:

I joined Poland's government bug bounty 🇵🇱 My "team" was an abliterated DeepSeek V4.1 Flash running locally on 4× NVIDIA DGX Spark. Most models refuse security work by reflex, even in a legal, scoped program. This one just helped: it read code, tested ideas and drafted reports. Nothing left my own hardware. 17 reports in 2 days: ✅ 1 accepted: 4,000 PLN from @CERT_Polska ⏳ 12 pending or under analysis ❌ 4 rejected (out of scope: no confidential data leaked, but still passed on to the affected organisation to fix) I'm giving every złoty I earn in this round to fundraisers on Poland's biggest charity crowdfunding platform. 💚 Thanks to @CERT_Polska, NASK, COI and the Władysławowo commune for running an open program.

I’m quoted in this Sunday’s @thetimes interview with justice minister @AlexDaviesJones regarding her, @Jess4Lowestoft, and others’ regrettable comments about the implications of the S104 offences in the Crime and Policing Act. For reference, my full quotes were: “It is tragic to see MPs pronouncing contradictory interpretations of the legislation they voted for, with no binding effect on courts considering these broadly drawn and ill-defined offences. It is disgusting to see them resort to victim-blaming reminiscent the AIDS crisis when challenged for their inability to recognise those unintended consequences.   The new publication offences are likely to create a deluge of reports to the police, similar to Section 127 offences for social media posts, inundating our overstretched courts with ambiguous alleged offences.   Sex workers who have had their taxed and legal businesses destroyed by overly cautious platforms are being put at greater risk of male violence or returned to poverty, and dependency on the welfare budget.”