Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cyberflashing

Cyberflashing is the unsolicited transmission of explicit sexual images, such as depictions of genitals, to recipients via digital platforms including peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies or messaging services.^[1]^[2] This non-consensual act parallels traditional flashing but leverages proximity-based Bluetooth sharing, like Apple's AirDrop in public settings, or online channels such as social media and dating applications, enabling anonymous or opportunistic delivery.^[1]^[3] Empirical research identifies cyberflashing as a prevalent form of image-based sexual abuse, with peer-reviewed studies documenting its occurrence among adolescents and adults, often driven by motives like partner-seeking or dominance assertion, though recipients typically report aversion and psychological distress including anxiety and objectification.^[4]^[5] In jurisdictions like the United States, responses vary by locality, with ordinances such as Chicago's defining and penalizing it through data-dropping technologies, while lacking uniform federal prohibition.^[6] The United Kingdom addressed cyberflashing through legislative reform, enacting it as a criminal offense under the Online Safety Act 2023 effective January 2024, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment to deter intrusions on autonomy and privacy.^[2]^[7] Academic analyses emphasize its role in gendered patterns of sexual intrusion, prompting calls for consent-focused laws, though enforcement challenges persist due to technological anonymity and underreporting.^[8]^[9]

Definition and Methods

Definition

Cyberflashing refers to the act of sending unsolicited sexually explicit images or videos, typically depicting genitals, to another person's electronic device without their consent.^[10]^[11] This form of digital harassment often exploits proximity-based wireless technologies, such as Apple's AirDrop or Bluetooth file-sharing protocols, enabling anonymous transmission between nearby devices in public settings like trains or buses.^[1]^[3]^[12] The term distinguishes cyberflashing from broader categories of image-based sexual abuse, such as unsolicited explicit content sent via social media, dating apps, or text messages to known contacts, by emphasizing direct, device-to-device delivery to strangers without requiring phone numbers or usernames.^[2]^[11] Perpetrators typically scan for devices with open sharing settings, allowing files to appear as transfer requests that recipients may inadvertently accept.^[13]^[14] Legally, cyberflashing has been codified in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom under Section 187 of the Online Safety Act 2023, which criminalizes intentionally sending photographs or films of genitals to another person with the intent or reasonable belief that the recipient will feel alarmed, distressed, or humiliated.^[15]^[2] Similar definitions appear in local ordinances, such as Chicago's municipal code, which specifies "knowingly and without lawful justification" sending intimate images via data-dropping technology.^[6] These frameworks underscore the non-consensual and intrusive nature of the act, equating it to a digital analogue of public indecency.^[16]

Transmission Techniques

Cyberflashing primarily utilizes proximity-based wireless technologies for unsolicited transmission of explicit images in physical settings. Apple's AirDrop feature exemplifies this method, employing Bluetooth low energy signals to detect nearby compatible devices within approximately 30 feet, followed by direct Wi-Fi connections for file transfer without internet reliance.^[17] Perpetrators configure AirDrop to accept requests from "Everyone," enabling anonymous image previews—often thumbnails of genitalia—to appear on recipients' screens, prompting either acceptance or rejection while causing immediate distress.^[18] This technique gained notoriety in crowded public venues, such as London Underground trains, where senders exploit the feature's default visibility settings to target unsuspecting users.^[19] Bluetooth file-sharing protocols represent another offline transmission vector, allowing direct device-to-device exchanges of media without user authentication in some implementations.^[20] These methods thrive on physical proximity, evading traditional online moderation by operating peer-to-peer, though recipients retain control via acceptance prompts.^[21] Online platforms facilitate remote cyberflashing through internet-mediated channels. Social media applications, including Snapchat and Instagram, enable direct messaging of images to strangers or followed users, with ephemeral features in Snapchat permitting self-deleting content that complicates reporting.^[22] Dating apps like Tinder integrate unsolicited image sharing within chat interfaces, often following minimal or no prior interaction, exploiting user profiles for targeting.^[22] Text messaging via SMS or apps like WhatsApp similarly transmits explicit content using phone numbers obtained through various means, bypassing spatial limitations but subjecting sends to carrier logs and platform policies.^[11] These digital avenues predominate in non-proximate scenarios, leveraging account anonymity or pseudonyms to obscure sender identities.^[11]

Historical Context

Origins and Early Instances

The term "cyberflashing" emerged in 2015 to describe the unsolicited sending of explicit images, particularly via proximity-based wireless technologies like Apple's AirDrop or Bluetooth, distinguishing it from earlier digital harassment methods such as MMS spam or email attachments.^[23] This specific form relies on devices automatically detecting and allowing transfers from nearby users without prior contact, a capability enabled by features introduced in modern smartphones around 2013. The earliest widely reported instance occurred on August 13, 2015, when a female commuter in northern England received two unsolicited penis images via AirDrop on her iPhone during her journey to work, leading British Transport Police to investigate it as the first known case of cyberflashing.^[24] The recipient described the images appearing unbidden on her device, highlighting the intrusive nature of the technology's default settings, which permit file sharing from "everyone" in proximity. No arrests were made in this initial case, but it popularized the term and raised awareness of the vulnerability in public spaces like trains.^[24] Prior to 2015, while unsolicited explicit content was sent via internet and mobile networks since the early 2000s, documented cases matching the cyberflashing definition—non-consensual, opportunistic sharing to strangers via local wireless protocols—are absent from records, as such technologies were not yet ubiquitous.^[23] Instances surged in subsequent years, with reports from Australia in 2019 noting similar AirDrop misuse in schools and public areas, but the 2015 UK event marks the origin of recognized early documentation.^[25]

Evolution with Technology

Cyberflashing emerged as mobile technologies advanced from traceable messaging to anonymous proximity-based sharing. Unsolicited explicit images were initially sent via multimedia messaging service (MMS), with the first MMS-capable mobile devices released in 2002, requiring the recipient's phone number for transmission.^[26] This method, while enabling image harassment, offered limited anonymity due to carrier logs and identifiable numbers. Smartphone proliferation in the late 2000s introduced apps facilitating quicker image exchange, such as Snapchat launched in September 2011, which emphasized ephemeral messaging but still often relied on prior user connections for unsolicited sends.^[27] However, these platforms generally required usernames or contacts, constraining random targeting. A significant evolution occurred with proximity technologies like Apple's AirDrop, introduced in iOS 7 on September 18, 2013, enabling wireless file transfers between nearby devices using Bluetooth and Wi-Fi without personal identifiers.^[28] When set to receive from "everyone," AirDrop allowed anonymous sending to strangers in public spaces, mirroring physical flashing's immediacy and lack of consent. The first widely documented cyberflashing incident via AirDrop took place on August 13, 2015, when a woman on a London train received unsolicited penis images, prompting police investigation and coining the term in mainstream discourse.^[24] This marked a shift toward location-dependent digital harassment, with reports surging in crowded venues like trains and buses where devices could detect each other within approximately 30 feet.^[29] Cross-platform Bluetooth sharing on Android devices and other systems extended this capability, though AirDrop's ease and prevalence among iPhone users drove early prominence.^[30] By enabling sender anonymity and recipient surprise, these technologies amplified cyberflashing's prevalence and psychological impact compared to earlier methods.

Prevalence and Data

Statistical Overview

A 2018 Statistics Canada survey reported that 11% of women and 6% of men aged 15 and older had received unwanted sexually suggestive or explicit images via digital means, with rates rising to 25% of women and 10% of men among those aged 15-24.^[31] Similar self-reported prevalence appears in U.S. and U.K. studies, though direct comparisons are limited by varying definitions and methodologies; for instance, a U.K. survey of over 2,000 adult women found 41% had received an unsolicited nude or sexual image.^[4] In the U.K., data from advocacy groups indicate that 48% of women aged 18-24 have encountered unsolicited sexual photos, often via apps or Bluetooth features like AirDrop, with underreporting common as only about 17% of young recipients notify platforms.^[32] Perpetration rates are lower in surveyed samples; one study of U.S. adults found 48.1% of men admitting to sending unsolicited genital images, compared to far fewer women.^[33] Broader image-based sexual abuse surveys across 10 countries, including the U.S. and U.K., estimate that over 22% of adults have experienced non-consensual explicit image sharing, though cyberflashing specifically comprises a subset.^[34] These figures rely heavily on self-reported surveys, which may inflate due to recall bias or differing interpretations of "unsolicited," and lack uniform global tracking; official incident data remains sparse post-2024 U.K. criminalization, with no large-scale prosecutions reported as of late 2025.^[35] Demographic patterns show disproportionate victimization among young women, but empirical causation for broader psychological claims requires further longitudinal study beyond cross-sectional prevalence.

Demographic Patterns

Perpetrators of cyberflashing are overwhelmingly male, with empirical studies consistently identifying gender as a primary predictor of engaging in the unsolicited transmission of explicit images. A population-based survey in Norway found that males were substantially more likely than females to report sending nude pictures or videos without recipient consent, with prevalence rates among males exceeding those of females across age cohorts from adolescence to adulthood. This pattern aligns with broader research on image-based sexual abuse (IBSA), where cyberflashing perpetrators score higher on traits associated with male-typical risk-taking and sexual entitlement, such as hostile masculinity, though these correlations do not imply causation without longitudinal data. Female perpetration exists but is markedly rarer, often occurring within contexts of victim-perpetrator overlap rather than as a primary demographic driver.^[36]^[37] Victims are predominantly female, reporting receipt of unsolicited genital images—typically penises—from male strangers or acquaintances via platforms like AirDrop or messaging apps. In a study of 392 Spanish women aged 18–45, a significant proportion described such incidents as originating from men, with frequency linked to public settings like trains where Bluetooth-enabled devices facilitate anonymous sending. While indiscriminate methods like AirDrop can affect males, female victims comprise the majority in reported cases, potentially due to targeted selection by perpetrators seeking sexual gratification or dominance. Among youth, Swedish teens perceive unsolicited "dick pics" as a male-initiated behavior directed at females, reinforcing gendered patterns in digital sexual harassment.^[38]^[39] Age demographics reveal peaks among young adults aged 18–24 for both perpetration and victimization, coinciding with widespread smartphone adoption and social media use. Perpetrator studies indicate higher incidence among this group, with motivations including thrill-seeking or miscalibrated reciprocity expectations from pornographic media exposure. Victim-perpetrator overlap is pronounced in this demographic, where up to substantial portions of young IBSA victims have also sent unsolicited images, suggesting bidirectional risks in sexually experimental environments rather than isolated offending. Older adults (over 35) show lower perpetration rates, though victimization persists across ages due to persistent exposure in public digital spaces. These patterns draw from self-reported surveys, which may undercount due to stigma but provide consistent cross-study convergence on youth male perpetration toward females.^[4]^[40]^[41]

Impacts on Individuals

Claimed Psychological Effects

Receiving unsolicited explicit images via cyberflashing is claimed to induce immediate negative emotional responses, including disgust, shock, violation of privacy, and objectification, with recipients often describing a sense of personal boundary intrusion akin to non-digital flashing.^[42] These reactions are frequently reported in surveys of young adults, where women in particular note feelings of unease and reduced trust in digital interactions following such incidents.^[31] Longer-term psychological effects claimed include heightened anxiety, depressive symptoms, and diminished self-esteem, with empirical associations drawn from studies on adolescents and young adults. For instance, receipt of unsolicited sexual images correlates with increased depressive symptoms and lower self-esteem among both genders in a 2024 analysis of high school students.^[43] Broader research on image-based sexual harassment, encompassing cyberflashing, links repeated exposure to poorer mental health outcomes such as anxiety and low mood, particularly among female victims who report feeling unsafe in online spaces.^[44]^[45] In severe or repeated cases, advocates and some qualitative accounts assert potential for more profound distress, including fear, social withdrawal, and even suicidal ideation, drawing parallels to other forms of nonconsensual sexual exposure.^[46] However, these claims often stem from self-reported data in victim-focused samples, with variability noted based on individual resilience, context, and frequency of incidents; not all recipients experience lasting harm, and some report primarily transient irritation or indifference.^[47]^[42]

Evidence Assessment and Counterarguments

Empirical evidence on the psychological effects of cyberflashing primarily derives from self-reported accounts in qualitative studies and small-scale surveys, which document immediate negative reactions such as disgust, annoyance, shock, fear, and feelings of dehumanization among recipients.^[48] ^[46] For instance, a 2018 YouGov poll of 1,738 adults aged 18-36 found that 58% of those receiving unsolicited explicit images reported disgust as their primary response, while smaller interview-based studies (e.g., n=5 victims) describe perceptions of immorality and non-consensual intrusion, though initial self-blame may diminish with experience.^[49] Broader research on image-based sexual abuse, including cyberflashing subsets, links such incidents to correlated symptoms like anxiety and shame, but these findings rely on retrospective self-reports without established causal mechanisms or controls for confounding factors such as prior trauma or repeated exposure to online harassment.^[46] Quantitative data on long-term impacts remains sparse, with no large-scale longitudinal studies isolating cyberflashing's effects from general digital annoyances or demonstrating clinical outcomes like diagnosable depression or suicidal ideation attributable solely to isolated incidents.^[49] Victim surveys often exhibit selection bias, drawing from self-selected or advocacy-recruited samples that may amplify reported distress, while academic sources, influenced by institutional emphases on gendered violence, frequently frame cyberflashing as inherently traumatic without rigorous falsification.^[4] Varied recipient responses further complicate claims of uniform harm; some studies note instances where individuals dismissed or even laughed at unsolicited images, suggesting resilience or contextual minimization in non-threatening scenarios.^[46] Counterarguments highlight the ephemeral nature of most reported distress, positioning it as akin to transient irritation rather than substantive psychological injury warranting specialized criminalization.^[49] Critics contend that equating annoyance or disgust—common to myriad unsolicited digital intrusions—with "serious mental distress" overstates causality, absent evidence tying cyberflashing to escalated risks like sexual assault or enduring mental health disorders; existing communications laws already address malicious intent without needing harm thresholds inflated by subjective sensitivity.^[49] Moreover, sender-recipient expectation gaps, where perpetrators anticipate affirmation but elicit discomfort, underscore miscalibrated social norms rather than inherent victim trauma, with calls for evidentiary rigor over anecdotal amplification in policy-driven research.^[4] These perspectives emphasize that while non-consensual exposure merits deterrence, unsubstantiated escalation to "violence" risks pathologizing everyday rudeness, particularly when male recipients report comparably lower harm perceptions.^[49]

Notable Cases

Prominent Incidents

In August 2015, British Transport Police investigated what was reported as the first cyberflashing incident in the United Kingdom, involving a female commuter on a train in South London who received two unsolicited images of a man's genitals via Apple's AirDrop feature while traveling to work.^[24] The case highlighted vulnerabilities in Bluetooth-based sharing technologies and prompted early discussions on prosecuting such acts under existing harassment laws, though no conviction was reported from this specific investigation.^[50] A landmark conviction occurred in March 2024, when Nicholas Hawkes, a 39-year-old registered sex offender from Basildon, Essex, became the first person in England and Wales jailed for cyberflashing under the Online Safety Act 2023. Hawkes sent approximately 120 unsolicited images of his genitals to a 15-year-old girl via Snapchat and additional images to a woman via WhatsApp, actions traced to him while commuting on the London Underground.^[51] He pleaded guilty to two counts of cyberflashing, receiving a sentence of 52 weeks imprisonment for those offenses, plus 14 weeks for breaching a prior sexual harm prevention order, totaling 66 weeks.^[52] This case underscored the offense's prevalence on public transport and dating apps, with Hawkes' prior convictions for sexual offenses adding to its notoriety.^[53] Other notable reports include recurrent AirDrop-based incidents on UK trains, where cases doubled from 2018 to 2019, often involving unsolicited explicit images sent to passengers' devices in crowded settings like the London Underground, though many went unreported due to victims' reluctance or evidential challenges.^[54] In the United States, similar AirDrop harassment emerged around 2018, with reports of lewd images sent to iPhone users in public spaces, contributing to state-level legislative pushes but lacking a singular high-profile conviction comparable to the UK cases.^[55]

Patterns in Reported Events

Reported cyberflashing events frequently involve the use of proximity-based file-sharing technologies such as Apple's AirDrop, enabling anonymous transmission of unsolicited explicit images to nearby devices in public settings.^[18] This method preserves perpetrator anonymity, as recipients often cannot identify the sender without additional context, and has been documented in incidents on public transportation systems.^[56] ^[57] For instance, victim testimonies highlight occurrences on trains and in crowded urban areas, where devices detect each other via Bluetooth, facilitating rapid, unsolicited sharing without prior interaction.^[58] ^[59] Demographic patterns in reported cases reveal a predominance of female victims, particularly young women and girls, targeted by male perpetrators, often strangers.^[60] In the United Kingdom, British Transport Police data indicate a sharp rise in such incidents on rail networks, with 66 reports in 2019 compared to 34 in 2018 and only 3 in 2016, suggesting increasing prevalence or awareness.^[61] Surveys corroborate this, with 37% of UK adolescent girls aged 12-18 reporting receipt of unwanted sexual images online versus 20% of boys, though cyberflashing specifically via public sharing aligns with broader image-based abuse trends.^[62] Perpetrator-victim overlap exists in some datasets, where approximately 15% of surveyed individuals who experienced cyberflashing also admitted to perpetrating it, potentially indicating normalized behavior in certain subgroups.^[37] Underreporting characterizes many events, with only 17% of affected young people in one UK survey disclosing incidents to authorities or platforms, attributed to embarrassment, normalization, or perceived futility.^[35] Platforms involved extend beyond AirDrop to social media and dating apps, where cyberflashing occurs via direct messages, but public transport cases emphasize opportunistic, non-digital-contact initiations.^[60] Temporal patterns show escalation post-2015, coinciding with AirDrop's popularity, though comprehensive global statistics remain limited due to inconsistent classification and reporting mechanisms.^[49]

Legal Developments

Legislation by Jurisdiction

In the United Kingdom, cyberflashing was criminalized as a specific offence under section 66A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as amended by the Online Safety Act 2023, effective 31 January 2024 in England and Wales. The law prohibits sending or transmitting an image or video of genitals with intent to cause alarm, distress, or obtain sexual gratification, or where the sender is reckless as to whether the recipient would find it offensive, with a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.^[2]^[15] Similar provisions apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland under broader communications offences, though not identically codified.^[63] In the European Union, the Directive on Combatting Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (2024/1385), adopted by the European Parliament on 24 April 2024 and the Council on 7 May 2024, mandates member states to criminalize cyberflashing as a form of gender-based cyberviolence, defined as non-consensual sharing of intimate images including unsolicited genital depictions via digital means. Penalties must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive, with implementation required by member states by June 2027; prior to this, enforcement varied by country, often under general harassment or image distribution laws.^[64]^[65] The United States lacks a federal criminal prohibition on cyberflashing; proposed legislation like the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act (introduced March 2024) seeks a civil right of action for recipients of unsolicited explicit images, imposing penalties up to $10,000 per violation, but remains unpassed as of October 2025. At the state level, California's AB 602 (2022) creates a civil cause of action for victims receiving unsolicited obscene digital images, allowing damages and injunctions. New Hampshire's HB 433 (2023) criminalizes knowingly transmitting unsolicited intimate images to adults over 16, with misdemeanor penalties up to one year in jail and $2,000 fine. Oregon's HB 2956 (2025) enables civil suits for unsolicited nudes, with penalties up to $5,000. Other states address it under existing harassment or indecent exposure statutes.^[66]^[67]^[68] Australia has no uniform federal or state-specific criminal offence for cyberflashing to adults; it is typically prosecuted under general provisions like telecommunications harassment or image-based abuse laws, such as New South Wales' Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2017, which penalizes distribution of intimate images without consent (up to 3 years imprisonment), though this focuses more on recording and sharing than unsolicited sending. The Online Safety Act 2021 empowers the eSafety Commissioner to order removal of harmful content, including unsolicited explicit images, with civil penalties up to AUD 555,000 for non-compliance, but lacks direct criminalization for one-off instances unless involving minors or threats.^[69]^[70] In Canada, cyberflashing to adults is not explicitly criminalized and falls under broader Criminal Code provisions like section 162.1 on non-consensual distribution of intimate images (up to 5 years imprisonment), which requires knowledge of lack of consent but primarily targets sharing rather than initial unsolicited sending. If directed at minors, it may invoke child luring offences under section 172.1 (up to 14 years). Proposed expansions in the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63, introduced February 2024) aim to regulate harmful online content but do not yet specifically address cyberflashing.^[71]^[31]^[72] Singapore established cyberflashing as a specific offence under section 377BE of the Penal Code in January 2020, criminalizing transmission of obscene images via electronic means with intent to offend or without reasonable excuse, punishable by up to one year's imprisonment or a fine.^[73]

Enforcement Outcomes and Challenges

In England and Wales, cyberflashing became a criminal offense under section 66A of the Online Safety Act 2023, effective January 31, 2024, with a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. The first conviction under this provision occurred on March 7, 2024, when Nicholas Hawkes, a registered sex offender, pleaded guilty to sending unsolicited explicit images via AirDrop to two women on a train and was sentenced to nine months in prison. By December 2024, at least 90 individuals had been convicted, including at least 22 cases involving minors, though alternative reporting indicates approximately 43 convictions in the same period, reflecting limited prosecutorial scale relative to prevalence estimates where one in three teenage girls reports receiving such images.^[74]^[75]^[76]^[77] Enforcement outcomes remain modest, with cyberflashing designated a priority offense in September 2025 to enhance platform accountability and fines up to 10% of global revenue for non-compliance by tech firms. In jurisdictions without specific statutes, such as many U.S. states, prosecutions rely on broader harassment or indecent exposure laws, yielding inconsistent results and fewer dedicated cases due to evidentiary gaps.^[78]^[79] Key challenges include low victim reporting, with surveys showing only 2% of young recipients notifying police and 17% alerting platforms, often due to stigma or perceived futility. Proving intent to cause distress or humiliation introduces high evidential thresholds, as senders can claim lack of motive or accidental transmission, while anonymous methods like Bluetooth file-sharing hinder perpetrator identification.^[35]^[8]^[80] Further obstacles encompass technical barriers in digital forensics, such as preserving chain of custody for volatile evidence and overcoming platform encryption or data retention limits, alongside jurisdictional issues in cross-border transmissions. Resource strains on law enforcement, including insufficient specialized training and prioritization of higher-harm crimes, contribute to under-prosecution despite legislative intent.^[81]^[82]^[83]

Controversies and Critiques

Debates on Harm and Overreaction

Critics of cyberflashing's classification as a severe form of sexual harm argue that empirical evidence for long-term psychological damage remains scant, with most reported reactions limited to transient disgust or annoyance rather than profound trauma. A 2023 analysis by legal scholar Bo Wang highlights that while victims may feel violated or anxious upon receipt, no large-scale studies demonstrate sustained mental health impacts comparable to physical sexual offenses, and no documented cases link cyberflashing to subsequent assaults or bodily harm.^[49] Wang critiques reliance on anecdotal accounts and small-scale surveys, such as a YouGov poll of over 3,700 young adults (aged 18-36) indicating primary responses of disgust (58%) or irritation, without evidence of enduring effects.^[49] Proponents of stricter measures, drawing from qualitative victim accounts, contend that the non-consensual intrusion equates to digital exhibitionism, evoking feelings of objectification and safety threats akin to street flashing. An explorative study of cyberflashing victims describes experiences of shock, anger, and diminished trust in digital interactions, positioning it within broader image-based sexual abuse frameworks that correlate with elevated anxiety or depressive symptoms in aggregated data.^[60]^[33] However, such studies often encompass wider abuses like non-consensual sharing of existing images, diluting specificity to unsolicited sends, and lack controls for confounding factors like repeated exposure or pre-existing vulnerabilities.^[33] Debates intensify over proportionality, with skeptics warning that equating ephemeral, deletable images to violent crimes risks over-criminalization, as existing statutes on malicious communications or harassment already address intent to cause distress or anxiety without necessitating new sexual offenses.^[49] The UK's 2021 Law Commission proposal, which informed 2024 legislation, eschewed requiring proof of actual harm, opting instead for sender knowledge of likely offense, a threshold Wang deems insufficiently tethered to causal evidence of injury and potentially expansive to minor nuisances.^[49] This perspective underscores a first-principles distinction: digital exposure, absent coercion or persistence, imposes no physical risk and hinges on subjective interpretation, contrasting with empirically validated harms of tactile violations. Academic and media amplification of victim testimonies, often from advocacy-driven samples, may inflate perceived severity amid institutional incentives to frame online behaviors as gendered violence.^[4]

Free Speech and Over-Criminalization Concerns

Critics of cyberflashing legislation argue that definitions such as "without reasonable excuse" or "likely to cause alarm or distress" are overly broad, potentially encompassing consensual or artistic expressions of nudity and thereby chilling protected speech.^[84] In the United Kingdom, Article 19, an international human rights organization focused on freedom of expression, condemned the Law Commission's 2021 proposals for cyberflashing offenses under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, asserting that such phrasing imposes an undue evidentiary burden on defendants and risks infringing on legitimate communications.^[84] The subsequent Online Safety Act 2023, which criminalized cyberflashing with penalties up to two years' imprisonment, has drawn similar rebukes; the Open Rights Group warned that its expansive duties on platforms to remove content could lead to preemptive censorship of non-harmful material to avoid liability.^[85] Social media platform X has contended that the Act's enforcement mechanisms risk suppressing free speech by compelling over-moderation of user-generated content.^[86] In the United States, Texas Penal Code § 21.19, enacted in 2019, prohibits the knowing transmission of unsolicited intimate visual material, classifying violations as a Class C misdemeanor punishable by fines up to $500.^[20] Legal scholars have raised First Amendment concerns, noting the statute's potential overbreadth and vagueness, which could inadvertently criminalize protected speech such as medical imagery or satirical content without requiring proof of intent to harass or cause affront.^[87] ^[88] The absence of an explicit "affront or alarm" element in the law heightens risks of applying criminal sanctions to non-threatening acts, prompting suggestions for amendments to align with true threat doctrines under cases like Virginia v. Black (2003).^[87] Over-criminalization critiques emphasize that treating unsolicited explicit images as standalone crimes elevates minor social nuisances to prosecutable offenses, diverting resources from severe harms like violence or fraud while imposing disproportionate consequences such as arrest records and stigma on low-intent actors.^[49] In jurisdictions like Texas, the lack of a scienter requirement beyond "knowing" transmission may ensnare inadvertent or joking behaviors in the criminal justice system, potentially eroding due process without empirical evidence of widespread severe psychological trauma justifying felony-level responses.^[87] Advocates for restraint argue that platform-level blocks or civil remedies, rather than state intervention, better balance deterrence with proportionality, as criminal thresholds should reserve sanctions for conduct evidencing clear malice or repeated targeting rather than isolated transmissions.^[87] These concerns underscore tensions between harm prevention and expressive freedoms, with data on conviction rates remaining limited post-enactment to assess real-world overreach.^[89]

Mitigation Approaches

Technological and Platform Measures

Apple's AirDrop feature, commonly exploited for cyberflashing via Bluetooth proximity sharing, includes configurable privacy settings to restrict incoming requests. Users can select "Receiving Off" to disable unsolicited transfers entirely or limit to "Contacts Only," the default setting since iOS 16.1 in October 2022, which requires mutual contacts for file acceptance.^[90]^[91] Social media and messaging platforms have deployed AI-driven content moderation tools to detect and mitigate unsolicited explicit images. Bumble's Private Detector, introduced in 2019, employs machine learning to identify obscene photos in direct messages, blurring them and warning recipients before optional viewing; the tool was open-sourced in October 2022 for broader adoption.^[92] Meta's Instagram implemented a nudity filter in direct messages by April 2024, using on-device machine learning to automatically blur detected explicit content, particularly targeting sextortion risks for teenagers.^[93]^[94] Regulatory frameworks are compelling platforms to enhance proactive detection. Under the UK's Online Safety Act, designated as a priority offence in September 2025, social media and dating apps must implement measures to prevent users from receiving unsolicited nudes, including swift content removal and risk mitigation protocols.^[95] Similar U.S. efforts, like the TAKE IT DOWN Act effective May 2025, mandate platforms to enable victim removal requests for nonconsensual intimate images, though enforcement focuses more on reactive reporting than preemptive tech filters.^[96]^[97] These tools rely on classifiers trained to recognize nudity without accessing message content in encrypted chats, balancing privacy with harm prevention.^[98]

Personal and Educational Strategies

Individuals can mitigate cyberflashing by adjusting device privacy settings to restrict unsolicited file transfers. On Apple devices, setting AirDrop to "Receiving Off" or "Contacts Only" prevents unknown users from sending images via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi.^[19]^[99] Disabling Bluetooth entirely when not required further reduces exposure to nearby opportunistic senders.^[100] For iOS 17 and later, enabling Sensitive Content Warning automatically detects and blurs potentially explicit images in Messages, providing an additional layer of protection against visual exposure.^[101] Upon receiving an unsolicited explicit image, users should decline the transfer, block the sender if identifiable, and report the incident to platform authorities or law enforcement, preserving evidence such as screenshots or device logs.^[102] Maintaining situational awareness in public spaces, such as on public transport where incidents are prevalent, and avoiding engagement with suspicious notifications also serve as proactive measures.^[103] Educational strategies emphasize digital literacy programs that instruct users, particularly youth, on configuring devices securely and recognizing cyberflashing risks. Parents and guardians can guide children to set AirDrop to "Contacts Only" and monitor usage in high-risk environments like schools or commuting.^[13] Schools incorporate awareness into curricula via resources from cybersecurity organizations, teaching reporting protocols and the psychological impacts of non-consensual image sharing to foster resilience.^[104] Community campaigns, often led by nonprofits, promote habitual privacy checks and emphasize that rejecting unwanted content does not imply consent, countering normalization in peer groups.^[11]

References

[1]
CYBER-FLASHING definition | Cambridge English Dictionary
Cyber-flashing is the sending of obscene pictures to others over peer-to-peer Wi-Fi networks, such as AirDrop. Police are investigating an incident of ...
[2]
'Cyberflashing' to become a criminal offence - GOV.UK
Mar 13, 2022 · The practice typically involves offenders sending an unsolicited sexual image to people via social media or dating apps, but can also be ...
[3]
What is 'cyber-flashing'? - West Yorkshire Police
Cyber-flashing is the sending of obscene pictures to others over peer-to-peer Wi-Fi networks, such as AirDrop.
[4]
Putting the Y in cyberflashing: Exploring the prevalence and ...
We examined reasons for the sending of unsolicited nude or sexual images. •. Partner hunting was the most common reason for cyberflashing. •. Power and control ...
[5]
Putting the Y in cyberflashing: : Exploring the prevalence and ...
Mar 1, 2023 · AbstractAlthough cyberflashing (the unsolicited sending of nude or sexual images) is common, it is typically met with a negative reaction ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[6]
8-4-127 Cyberstalking and cyber-flashing.
(5) "Cyber-flashing" means to knowingly and without lawful justification send an intimate image to another person through the use of data-dropping technology ...
[7]
Online Safety Act: explainer - GOV.UK
The criminal offences introduced by the Act came into effect on 31 January 2024. These offences cover: encouraging or assisting serious self-harm; cyberflashing ...
[8]
Cyberflashing: Consent, Reform and the Criminal Law - Sage Journals
Jan 18, 2022 · This article makes the case for a comprehensive, 'consent-based' criminal offence specifically targeting cyberflashing.
[9]
(PDF) Cyberflashing: Consent, Reform and the Criminal Law
Abstract. In the context of growing calls for a new law criminalising cyberflashing – the digital distribution of penis images to another without consent – this ...
[10]
What is cyber flashing? | Rape Crisis England & Wales
Cyber flashing is when someone sends a photo or video of their genitals – or someone else's – to another person without their consent.
[11]
Cyberflashing: Definition, effects, consequences, and more
May 14, 2024 · Cyberflashing is the act of sending someone unwanted and unsolicited sexual images or videos. This is typically done via social media, dating apps, text ...Definition · Effects · Coping
[12]
Cyber Flashing Offences: What You Need to Know | Askews Legal LLP
Nov 13, 2024 · Cyber flashing under S66A is a serious offence, carrying a maximum sentence of two years in prison if you are convicted in the Crown Court. A ...
[13]
Protecting Your Children from Cyberflashing via AirDrop: A Parent's ...
Cyberflashing involves sending explicit images or content to someone, often via Bluetooth or AirDrop, without their consent.
[14]
What is Cyber Flashing? My Kid Received P*rn - Protect Young Eyes
“Cyber flashing”, where explicit and abusive images are anonymously sent to strangers (or friends) through iPhones using its AirDrop feature.
[15]
Changes over time for: Section 187 - Online Safety Act 2023
(1)A person (A) who intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person's genitals to another person (B) commits an offence if— · (a)A intends that B ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[16]
Cyberflashing - Victim Support
Mar 13, 2025 · Cyberflashing is indecent exposure that happens online, when a perpetrator sends an unwanted image or video of someone's genitals.<|control11|><|separator|>
[17]
AirDrop and Cyber Flashing, what's the deal? - Pen Test Partners
Aug 13, 2015 · It works by using Bluetooth to create a peer-to-peer Wi-Fi network between devices. When one device has connected to another the receiver has to ...So Far So Good, Right? · Settings · It's Not Just Airdrop
[18]
How Apple's AirDrop Is Misused For Cyber Flashing - | Mobicip
Oct 28, 2019 · Cyber flashers are able to catch their victims off-guard because there is no filter between the victim's phone and the images being sent to them ...
[19]
How to prevent creeps from using Apple's AirDrop to 'cyber flash'
Aug 21, 2017 · Strangers can use Apple's AirDrop to harass users with unwanted photos. Here's how to keep your settings private.<|separator|>
[20]
What Is Cyber Flashing? - FindLaw
Jan 6, 2023 · It happens when a sender transmits explicit photos through Wi-Fi, messaging applications, online platforms, Bluetooth, or other file-sharing ...Missing: techniques methods
[21]
https://www.certosoftware.com/insights/can-someone-hack-my-iphone-through-airdrop-whats-real-vs-myth-in-2025/
[22]
Cyberflashing is a form of gendered sexual violence that must be ...
May 26, 2024 · New technologies lead to new forms of gender-based violence such as cyberflashing, where survivors receive unsolicited explicit images.
[23]
cyberflashing | Meaning & Origin - Dictionary.com
Aug 31, 2022 · The term cyberflashing has been used to refer to sending unsolicited sexual images online since at least 2015. Use of the term increased in the ...Missing: instances | Show results with:instances
[24]
Police investigate 'first cyber-flashing' case - BBC News
Aug 13, 2015 · Police are investigating a new crime of cyber-flashing after a commuter received an indecent image on her phone as she travelled to work.
[25]
Cyber flashing is the new iPhone safety threat as AirDrop used to ...
May 11, 2019 · Cyber flashing has become prevalent in schools and in public places, with the iPhone's AirDrop feature being exploited to share unsolicited pornographic and ...
[26]
MMS Messaging 101: Level Up Your Mobile Messaging | Tall Bob
Feb 28, 2022 · A brief history of MMS messaging. Sony Ericsson released its first mobile device with MMS capability in 2002. Other mobile technology companies ...Missing: introduction date
[27]
Nude 'Snapchat images' put online by hackers - BBC News
Oct 10, 2014 · Explicit images believed to have been sent through messaging service Snapchat were reportedly put online, with threats from hackers to upload more.
[28]
AirDrop - Apple Wiki | Fandom
AirDrop is a Bluetooth sharing feature introduced as part of iOS 7 in 2013. It is also supported by iPadOS and macOS.
[29]
Cyber-flashing is just as damaging as the 'real world' equivalent ...
Apr 19, 2023 · People being sent unsolicited sexual images via social media or Bluetooth drops should be entitled to justice, too, says journalist and ...
[30]
AirDrop Technology Opening the Door to Anonymous Sexual ...
Nov 29, 2019 · AirDrop is a software mechanism which allows an Apple device user to send media content to other Apple devices in close proximity over Bluetooth ...Missing: technically | Show results with:technically
[31]
Cyberflashing serious form of gendered sexual violence
sending sexually suggestive or explicit messages and images — is now a widespread practice, and can be a healthy way to express and ...
[32]
Sending unwanted graphic nudes 'should be a standalone crime'
Nov 3, 2021 · Cyberflashing disproportionately impacts women, according to new figures from Research With Barriers. It says nearly half (48%) of women ...
[33]
Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review - PMC
Jul 30, 2024 · Image-based sexual abuse (IBSA) refers to the nonconsensual creating, taking, or sharing of intimate images, including threatening to share images.
[34]
Prevalence and Impacts of Image-Based Sexual Abuse Victimization
This study examines prevalence of, impacts from, and responses to IBSA via a survey with over 16,000 adults in 10 countries. More than 1 in 5 (22.6%) ...
[35]
Opinion: Cyberflashing is now a criminal offence | UCL News
May 2, 2024 · In 2019, we researched cyberflashing interviewing 144 teens about their experiences of non-consensual sexual images on social media platforms.
[36]
Gender Differences in Sending Nude Pictures and Videos Across ...
Oct 1, 2022 · This article aims to determine the prevalence of sending nude pictures/videos in the Norwegian population and investigates gender differences.
[37]
Image-based sexual abuse: Victim-perpetrator overlap and risk ...
The present study explores three IBSA behaviours—coerced sexting, non-consensual dissemination of intimate images, and cyberflashing—to examine the degree of ...
[38]
Women's Reactions to Unwanted Sexual Images Sent by Men and ...
Apr 21, 2025 · Our research with 392 Spanish women aged 18–45 years examined the frequency and prevalence of unsolicited genital images, the relationship with ...
[39]
Full article: Digital media and the unsolicited dick pic – constructions ...
Sep 11, 2024 · This study explores the understanding of how young people perceive the senders and receivers of unsolicited dick pics, focusing on gender construction.
[40]
(PDF) Digital media and the unsolicited dick pic – constructions of ...
Aug 6, 2025 · The prevalence of sexting and dissemination of explicit sexual images (ESI) among teenagers has risen with mobile technology. Social media ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[41]
Personality, Attitudinal, and Demographic Predictors of Non ... - NIH
More than half of the NCII victims identified their NCII perpetrator as a friend or family member, and more than a quarter of NCII perpetrators ascertained they ...
[42]
Expected and actual affective reactions to unsolicited sexual images
Here, we examine the cyberflashing practices, expectations, and reactions of both men and women. Participants in our study (n = 810, 41.8% cyberflashers; 68.0% ...
[43]
Happy or Unhappy? Mental Health Correlates of Receiving Sexts ...
Feb 16, 2024 · Receiving an unsolicited sexual picture was associated with higher depressive symptoms and lower self-esteem for both boys and girls. This work ...
[44]
From trauma to anxiety and depression, how online sexual ...
Apr 14, 2025 · Women who experience online sexual harassment report significantly poorer mental health, including anxiety, depression and low self-esteem.
[45]
The Mental Health and Social Implications of Nonconsensual ... - NIH
In the past decade, the sending and sharing of sexual images among youth has become normalized. An associated risk of sharing sexual images is the images ...
[46]
Outcomes of image-based sexual abuse among young people
Jul 9, 2025 · The findings highlight severe emotional and psychological distress, including fear, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Social ...
[47]
[PDF] Sending of Unwanted Dick Pics as a Modality of Sexual Cyberviolence
Sexual cyberviolence directed to women: emotional impact and reactions. Research has established that receiving dick pics has an emotional impact on.
[48]
Victims' experiences of cyberflashing: an explorative study
Sharing sexually explicit material without consent from the receiver via technology, like social media or dating platforms, is called cyberflashing (Fisico, ...Missing: demographics | Show results with:demographics
[49]
A Critical Analysis of the Law Commission's Proposed Cyberflashing ...
Sep 15, 2022 · The Law Commission has proposed a new offence of cyberflashing to combat the problem of sending unsolicited images or videos of human genitals to others.
[50]
Woman Sent Unsolicited Penis Photos Via Apple Airdrop in First ...
Aug 13, 2015 · While riding a train in South London, a woman received two unsolicited pictures of a man's penis on her phone via Apple's “Airdrop” feature.Missing: notable | Show results with:notable
[51]
Prison sentence in first cyberflashing case
Mar 19, 2024 · Nicholas Hawkes, was sentenced at Southend Crown Court to a total of 66 weeks in prison. He received 52 weeks for the cyberflashing offences.
[52]
Court jails first person convicted of cyberflashing in England
Mar 19, 2024 · Nicholas Hawkes was convicted under the Online Safety Act after cyberflashing became an offence in England and Wales on 31 January.
[53]
Cyber-flashing convict is first to be jailed under new law - BBC
Mar 19, 2024 · Nicholas Hawkes was sentenced to 52 weeks in jail for the cyber-flashing offences and 14 additional weeks for breaches of previous court orders.
[54]
Cases of AirDrop cyber-flashing on UK trains doubled in 2019 but ...
Feb 19, 2020 · The number of cases of AirDrop cyber-flashing doubled last year. · It mostly happens on the London Underground. · Many instances are unreported.Missing: incidents notable<|separator|>
[55]
Sexual harassment goes high tech with iPhone's AirDrop - NBC News
Nov 25, 2018 · iPhone users can receive lewd and threatening messages from strangers, which can be triggering for survivors of sexual assault.Missing: notable | Show results with:notable
[56]
Someone AirDropped A Woman An Unsolicited Dick Pic During Her ...
Mar 11, 2019 · The trend of AirDropping an unsolicited dick pic to a stranger was first reported on public transportation in London in 2015, and “cyber ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
[57]
Cyber flashing and/or bullying anonymously with iPhone 'AirDrop'
Cyber flashing has become prevalent in schools and in public places (even on public transport), with the iPhone's AirDrop feature being exploited to share ...Missing: common patterns cases
[58]
Cyberflashing as a Sexual Intrusion - Bristol University Press Digital
Cyberflashing is non- consensual sexual conduct which intrudes on women's privacy, autonomy and everyday lives. It can induce fear, alarm and significant ...
[59]
[PDF] Written evidence submitted by Professor Clare McGlynn, Durham ...
May 5, 2021 · Cyberflashing in public spaces and on public transport: Victim-survivor testimonies reveal that women frequently experience cyberflashing in ...
[60]
Victims' experiences of cyberflashing: an explorative study
Victims perceive cyberflashing as immoral and dehumanising, yet excusable for several reasons including perpetrators' poor interpersonal skills, proposing ...
[61]
Cyber-flashing - Hansard - UK Parliament
Jan 25, 2022 · According to the British Transport police, there were 66 reports of cyber-flashing in 2019, compared with 34 in 2018 and just three in 2016. Of ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[62]
Online Harassment - Social Media and Adolescent Health - NCBI - NIH
Perpetrators of sextortion usually have multiple victims; the Department of Justice estimates that there are more victims per offender in sextortion cases than ...Missing: demographics | Show results with:demographics<|separator|>
[63]
Cyberflashing - Police.uk
Cyberflashing is when someone sends you a photo of genitals without your permission. It is sometimes called 'dick pics' or 'flashing'. It is illegal to do this.
[64]
First ever EU rules on combating violence against women
Feb 6, 2024 · specific rules for online crimes, including the release of intimate material and cyberflashing;; improved procedures for victims' safety and ...
[65]
First steps towards the criminalization of cyberflashing
Jul 7, 2024 · A new directive was approved by the European Parliament on April 24, 2024 and by the EU Council on May 7, 2024. This European directive calls ...
[66]
Schatz, Daines, McClellan, Moran Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral ...
Mar 20, 2024 · Bill would establish federal private right of action for individuals who receive unsolicited explicit images, impose civil penalties on senders.
[67]
California's Cyber Flash Law in California - Yoosefian Law Firm, P.C.
In 2022, the state passed a civil law that gives victims the right to sue anyone who sends them an unsolicited obscene image.
[68]
Quick Guide: Cyberflashing - NH Law Library - LibGuides
Nov 30, 2023 · This bill amended existing law to establish a criminal penalty for knowingly transmitting an unsolicited intimate image to someone who is 16 years or older.
[69]
Cyber-Flashing Laws, Offences and Penalties in Australia - Lexology
Jan 18, 2025 · 'Cyber-flashing' is a form a digital sexual harassment that involves sending unsolicited nude or sexual images to another person without their ...
[70]
Learn about the Online Safety Act | eSafety Commissioner
Aug 29, 2025 · The Online Safety Act 2021 expands Australia's protections against online harm, to keep pace with abusive behaviour and toxic content.
[71]
Cyberbullying and the Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images
Feb 2, 2023 · That offence prohibits the distribution of photos or videos of nude persons or persons engaging in sexual conduct, unless the person depicted in ...
[72]
Government of Canada introduces legislation to combat harmful ...
Feb 26, 2024 · The Online Harms Act would set out obligations for online platforms, including live-streaming and adult-content services like Facebook, Twitch and PornHub.
[73]
Criminalising Cyberflashing: Options for Law Reform - Sage Journals
Nov 15, 2020 · In this article, we examine the phenomenon of cyberflashing, outlining its prevalence, harms, and victim-survivors' experiences.Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[74]
First conviction for cyberflashing under the Online Safety Act
Mar 7, 2024 · The first person has been convicted of cyberflashing just weeks after the new provisions came into force as part of the Online Safety Act 2023.Missing: origins instances<|separator|>
[75]
Cyberflashing crackdown: Tech giants face hefty new fines - Daily Mail
Sep 28, 2025 · She referred to official figures showing that between January and December 2024, at least 90 people had been convicted – including at least 22 ...<|separator|>
[76]
Fewer than 50 convictions for cyberflashing in a year
Jun 21, 2025 · Fewer than 50 convictions for cyberflashing in a year ... Just 43 people were convicted of cyberflashing in 2024 since it was made illegal, ...
[77]
https://www.jmw.co.uk/blog/media-and-reputation-management/tackling-cyberflashing-a-priority-offence
[78]
Cyberflashing is a Priority (offence): Changes under the OSA
Oct 15, 2025 · On 29 September 2025, the government announced that cyberflashing will be added to the existing list of priority offences under the Online ...Missing: convictions | Show results with:convictions
[79]
Government strengthens tech regulation to tackle cyberflashing
Sep 30, 2025 · Cyberflashing – non-consensual sharing of nude genitals – was made an offence in January 2024. Today's announcement will put additional ...
[80]
Cyberflashing - Durham University
Nov 2, 2021 · Cyberflashing – sending penis images to someone without their consent – is wrong, can be seriously harmful and that it has increased since Covid.
[81]
Obstacles to Cybercrime Investigations - UNODC Sherloc
Cybercrime investigators also face technical challenges. ... What is more, investigators may not have the necessary equipment and digital forensics tools needed ...
[82]
Digital Evidence Challenges in Federal Cybercrime Trials
One major challenge in handling digital evidence is the risk of data tampering or loss during the collection process.
[83]
The Difficulties of Litigating Cyber Crime
Mar 30, 2016 · Difficulties include proving "injury in fact", difficulty in attribution and detection, international nature of crimes, and the need for " ...
[84]
Cyberflashing: Why Is It Legal? - Tanya Goodin
Sep 6, 2021 · The pressure group Article 19 has condemned the Law Commission's report, asserting that it wrongly utilises overly-broad phrases.
[85]
ORG warns of threat to privacy and free speech as Online Safety Bill ...
Sep 19, 2023 · ORG warns the Online Safety Bill threatens privacy, freedom of expression, and security, with potential for message scanning, censorship, and ...
[86]
UK's online safety law is putting free speech at risk, X says | Reuters
Aug 1, 2025 · Britain's online safety law risks suppressing free speech due to its heavy-handed enforcement, social media site X said on Friday, ...Missing: cyberflashing | Show results with:cyberflashing
[87]
[PDF] Fact or Phallus? Considering the Constitutionality of Texas's Cyber ...
Feb 8, 2021 · Cyber-flashing victims view it as sexual harassment and even as a form of sexual violence, and many feel intimidated, dis- tressed, and ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[88]
[PDF] Cyber Flashing: Unwanted and Non-Consensual Lewd Photographs ...
Sep 7, 2019 · This paper will describe the importance and status of efforts to curb technology enhanced sexual harassment of women online and over text ...Missing: techniques | Show results with:techniques
[89]
Cyberflashing, fake news and the new crimes in the Online Safety Act
Feb 13, 2024 · UK's first conviction demonstrates scope of controversial law that critics describe as a threat to privacy and free speech.Missing: concerns | Show results with:concerns
[90]
Secure AirDrop - Apple Support
Use AirDrop on your Mac to send items to nearby Apple devices in the Mac User Guide. Published Date: October 2025. See alsoSecure NameDropRecord suspicious ...
[91]
Use AirDrop on your iPhone or iPad - Apple Support
Use AirDrop on your iPhone or iPad. Turn on and use AirDrop to share and receive photos, documents, and more with nearby Apple devices.
[92]
Bumble makes cyberflashing detection tool available as open ...
Oct 21, 2022 · In 2019, Bumble launched its artificial intelligence tool 'Private Detector', which alerts users when they've been sent an obscene photo and ...
[93]
Instagram Targets Sex Scammers Preying On Teens In DMs - Forbes
Apr 11, 2024 · Instagram parent Meta said the nudity filter will scan images in DMs and automatically blur explicit content.
[94]
Meta announces new nudity filter in effort to tackle sextortion
Apr 11, 2024 · Meta's new filter uses on-device machine learning to analyse whether an image contains nudity, meaning it will work inside end-to-end encrypted chats.
[95]
Tech firms to prevent unwanted nudes under tougher laws to protect ...
Sep 29, 2025 · Cyberflashing became a criminal offence in England and Wales in January 2024, under the Online Safety Act 2023. The law made it illegal to send ...
[96]
The TAKE IT DOWN Act: A Federal Law Prohibiting ... - Congress.gov
May 20, 2025 · On April 28, 2025, Congress passed S. 146, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a bill that criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of intimate images.
[97]
'Take It Down Act' Requires Online Platforms To Remove ...
Jun 10, 2025 · A new law makes it illegal to post unauthorized intimate images or deepfakes, and requires online platforms to (a) set up systems so victims ...
[98]
Instagram is developing a way to protect users from cyberflashing
Sep 22, 2022 · Instagram is working on a way to protect users from unsolicited nude photos (also known as cyberflashing), the company has confirmed.
[99]
How To Avoid Getting Unwanted Airdrops in 2025 - ProPrivacy.com
Jun 18, 2024 · Make a habit of disabling AirDrop or switching to "Contacts Only" when you're not using it. This small action significantly reduces your ...
[100]
https://www.totaldefense.com/security-blog/bluetooth-blues-protect-yourself-from-unwanted-airdrop-spam/
[101]
Block Unsolicited Nudes on Your iPhone With This Hidden iOS 17 ...
Jul 7, 2024 · 1. Open Settings. 2. Tap Privacy & Security. 3. Tap Sensitive Content Warning. 4. Tap the switch next to Sensitive Content Warning. Once ...
[102]
What is Cyberflashing and How to Protect Yourself from it
Jul 10, 2024 · Cyberflashing is the act of sending nonconsensual sexual messages or images to someone via digital communication channels.Missing: techniques methods
[103]
Cyber-Flashing: What is it? How do you stop it? - SWGfL
Aug 19, 2015 · Ensure that unless you are using it, File Transfer Apps are switched off. This includes Bluetooth and Airdrop. If you do have to switch these on ...Missing: transmission techniques methods<|separator|>
[104]
Cybersecurity Awareness Program Parent and Educator Resources
Nov 29, 2021 · Get videos, presentations, and other educational resources for educators and parents to discuss cybersecurity with kids and teens from NetSmartz.