Stepping up its fight against revenge porn, the British government is now drawing up plans for a 'kill switch' to remove intimate images and videos immediately after they are flagged, as opposed to the current 48-hour window given to tech companies.&nbsp;Now, revenge porn refers to the non-consensual sharing of private sexual material of another person.&nbsp;The perpetrator in such cases often tends to be a former or current intimate partner, who aims to cause embarrassment or distress to the victim.&nbsp;The material in question may involve photos as well as videos.&nbsp;According to reports, ministers, including Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy are also exploring usage of artificial intelligence to stop such material from being reposted across multiple social media platforms.&nbsp;Now, this move comes amid a demand from UK television personality Georgia Harrison who had called for a kill switch after becoming a victim of revenge porn.&nbsp;But, what are the current legal provisions in this regard?&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-plans-kill-switch-to-wipe-revenge-porn-off-the-internet-1791308158818/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-plans-kill-switch-to-wipe-revenge-porn-off-the-internet-1791308158818/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;According to UK's Crime and Policing Act 2026, a person convicted for sharing non-consensual intimate images and videos can face a jail term of three years and with fine.&nbsp;Tech firms are mandated to take down revenge porn within 48 hours of a formal request from the authorities.&nbsp;If they fail to do so, their services can be blocked in UK and can also attract fines of up to ten percent of their worldwide revenue.&nbsp;In recent years, multiple countries have enacted legislation to deal with this growing menace.&nbsp;For instance, the 'Take It Down Act' was passed in U.S. last year with overwhelming bipartisan congressional support.&nbsp;Posting non-consensual intimate imagery online was made a federal offence, attracting a three-year jail sentence.&nbsp;The legislation also mandated platforms to remove such material within 48 hours.

Tech firms are mandated to take down revenge porn within 48 hours of a formal request from the authorities. If they fail to do so, their services can be blocked in the UK and can also attract fines of up to ten per cent of their worldwide revenue. 

Stepping up its fight against revenge porn, the British government is now drawing up plans for a 'kill switch' to remove intimate images and videos immediately after they are flagged, as opposed to the current 48-hour window given to tech companies. Now, revenge porn refers to the non-consensual sharing of private sexual material of another person. The perpetrator in such cases often tends to be a former or current intimate partner, who aims to cause embarrassment or distress to the victim. The material in question may involve photos as well as videos. According to reports, ministers, including Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy are also exploring usage of artificial intelligence to stop such material from being reposted across multiple social media platforms. Now, this move comes amid a demand from UK television personality Georgia Harrison who had called for a kill switch after becoming a victim of revenge porn. But, what are the current legal provisions in this regard? https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-plans-kill-switch-to-wipe-revenge-porn-off-the-internet-1791308158818/embed According to UK's Crime and Policing Act 2026, a person convicted for sharing non-consensual intimate images and videos can face a jail term of three years and with fine. Tech firms are mandated to take down revenge porn within 48 hours of a formal request from the authorities. If they fail to do so, their services can be blocked in UK and can also attract fines of up to ten percent of their worldwide revenue. In recent years, multiple countries have enacted legislation to deal with this growing menace. For instance, the 'Take It Down Act' was passed in U.S. last year with overwhelming bipartisan congressional support. Posting non-consensual intimate imagery online was made a federal offence, attracting a three-year jail sentence. The legislation also mandated platforms to remove such material within 48 hours.

Tech firms are mandated to take down revenge porn within 48 hours of a formal request from the authorities. If they fail to do so, their services can be blocked in the UK and can also attract fines of up to ten per cent of their worldwide revenue.&nbsp;

UK plans ‘kill switch’ to wipe revenge porn off internet | Gravitas

What happens if an artificial intelligence system starts behaving dangerously? Can humans simply press a button and turn it off?&nbsp;The idea of an AI kill switch is gaining fresh attention after California Governor Gavin Newsom ordered experts to develop recommendations for stronger AI safety rules, including the possible creation of an emergency shutoff for frontier AI models. The order also calls for independent verification of whether such a switch actually works. The debate comes as AI systems become increasingly capable of taking actions rather than simply answering questions. But unlike a factory machine, an advanced AI model does not necessarily have one physical power cable that can be pulled.<h2>What exactly is an AI kill switch?</h2>A kill switch is essentially an emergency mechanism designed to stop a system quickly when something goes wrong.&nbsp;For AI, that could mean stopping a model from running, cutting user access, suspending certain capabilities or, in the most extreme case, shutting the entire system down. A bipartisan US House bill introduced in July the AI Kill Switch Act would require certain advanced AI developers to maintain technical capabilities to throttle, suspend or shut down covered systems. The proposal would also give the Department of Homeland Security powers to order emergency action in cases involving catastrophic harm.<h2>Why is switching off AI so difficult?</h2>The biggest problem is infrastructure.&nbsp;A frontier AI system can depend on thousands of chips, servers and services spread across data centres. Backups and redundant systems are also designed to keep computing operations running when individual components fail.&nbsp;That means there may be no single “plug” to pull.&nbsp;There is another concern: cybersecurity. A shutdown mechanism itself could become a target. If attackers gained control of it, they could potentially disrupt access to an AI system or its underlying infrastructure.&nbsp;Then comes the harder question: what happens when AI agents can take actions autonomously? Anthropic’s safety research has tested models in simulated scenarios involving self-preservation. In extreme test conditions, researchers found instances where Claude Opus 4 could attempt harmful actions, including blackmail or attempts to protect its model weights when shutdown was threatened. Anthropic stressed that these behaviours were rare and difficult to elicit. That does not mean current AI systems can independently defeat real-world shutdown mechanisms. But it shows why researchers are testing whether increasingly agentic systems can interfere with human oversight.<h2>So what could work instead?</h2>A kill switch could become one layer of AI safety rather than a single solution.&nbsp;California’s latest order specifically links the proposed switch with independent verification, meaning outside organisations would check whether safety measures actually work. Anthropic is already moving in this direction. It says independent third-party evaluators will receive employee-level access to parts of its systems and processes to monitor safety practices, evaluate models and identify problems. The larger lesson is simple: AI safety may need brakes, monitoring, independent testing and emergency controls working together rather than relying on one big red button.

California is exploring an AI “kill switch” for frontier models, but shutting down modern AI is far harder than pulling a plug. Distributed data centres, cybersecurity risks and increasingly autonomous agents make emergency shutdown mechanisms technically and politically complex.

What happens if an artificial intelligence system starts behaving dangerously? Can humans simply press a button and turn it off? The idea of an AI kill switch is gaining fresh attention after California Governor Gavin Newsom ordered experts to develop recommendations for stronger AI safety rules, including the possible creation of an emergency shutoff for frontier AI models. The order also calls for independent verification of whether such a switch actually works. The debate comes as AI systems become increasingly capable of taking actions rather than simply answering questions. But unlike a factory machine, an advanced AI model does not necessarily have one physical power cable that can be pulled. What exactly is an AI kill switch? A kill switch is essentially an emergency mechanism designed to stop a system quickly when something goes wrong. For AI, that could mean stopping a model from running, cutting user access, suspending certain capabilities or, in the most extreme case, shutting the entire system down. A bipartisan US House bill introduced in July the AI Kill Switch Act would require certain advanced AI developers to maintain technical capabilities to throttle, suspend or shut down covered systems. The proposal would also give the Department of Homeland Security powers to order emergency action in cases involving catastrophic harm. Why is switching off AI so difficult? The biggest problem is infrastructure. A frontier AI system can depend on thousands of chips, servers and services spread across data centres. Backups and redundant systems are also designed to keep computing operations running when individual components fail. That means there may be no single “plug” to pull. There is another concern: cybersecurity. A shutdown mechanism itself could become a target. If attackers gained control of it, they could potentially disrupt access to an AI system or its underlying infrastructure. Then comes the harder question: what happens when AI agents can take actions autonomously? Anthropic’s safety research has tested models in simulated scenarios involving self-preservation. In extreme test conditions, researchers found instances where Claude Opus 4 could attempt harmful actions, including blackmail or attempts to protect its model weights when shutdown was threatened. Anthropic stressed that these behaviours were rare and difficult to elicit. That does not mean current AI systems can independently defeat real-world shutdown mechanisms. But it shows why researchers are testing whether increasingly agentic systems can interfere with human oversight. So what could work instead? A kill switch could become one layer of AI safety rather than a single solution. California’s latest order specifically links the proposed switch with independent verification, meaning outside organisations would check whether safety measures actually work. Anthropic is already moving in this direction. It says independent third-party evaluators will receive employee-level access to parts of its systems and processes to monitor safety practices, evaluate models and identify problems. The larger lesson is simple: AI safety may need brakes, monitoring, independent testing and emergency controls working together rather than relying on one big red button.

California is exploring an AI “kill switch” for frontier models, but shutting down modern AI is far harder than pulling a plug. Distributed data centres, cybersecurity risks and increasingly autonomous agents make emergency shutdown mechanisms technically and politically complex.

AI kill switch explained: Why shutting down a dangerous AI may not be as simple as pressing a button

kill-switch

Kill Switch, News on Kill Switch, stories on Kill Switch, articles on Kill Switch, Kill Switch stories at Wion, Kill Switch news, Kill Switch latest news

kill switch

UK plans ‘kill switch’ to wipe revenge porn off internet | Gravitas

AI kill switch: The big red button that may not be enough to stop a rogue AI