Slashdot Mirror
Australian ISPs Required To Report Child Porn
rolling_or_jaded writes "As of the 1st of March 2005, Australian ISPs and web hosts will face fines of up to $55,000 if they can be used to access child pornography and do not refer the information to the police. Yikes. How on earth are the ISPs (and web hosts -- like my own very small-time and humble company) supposed to enforce this?"
How on earth are the ISPs (and web hosts -- like my own very small-time and humble company) supposed to enforce this?
With vaporware!
just enable the evil bit of course
Does it mean they're going to hire people to go through all porn and judge which is legal?! Where can I send my resume?!?!
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
How do you decide what's child porn and whats good old regular normal porn
Ok, if we're talking about pre-teens and the like then it's obvious - but how do you know for sure if someone is older than the appropriate age for the legal jurisdiction in which the download takes place?
Given the wonders of make up and photography and different countries/states may decide that 16 / 18 / 21 is considered under age.
What does Roland Piquepaille think about this?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
What a way to make money!
"As of the 1st of March 2005, Australian ISPs and web hosts will face fines of up to $55,000 if they can be used to access child pornography and do not refer the information to the police. Yikes. How on earth are the ISPs (and web hosts -- like my own very small-time and humble company) supposed to enforce this?"
Easy:
Dear Police,
My ISP can be used to access child pornography.
Thanks,
Every ISP on Earth
These sorts of hysterias happen every now and then. People get all up in arms about drugs, child abductions, terrorism, alcohol, $BLAH... and all of a sudden the rules need to be changed to protect us all from the menace that threatens to corrupt our children and anally rape them with a crack pipe.
Civil liberties mean nothing when you can get a good hysteria going.
there's no way you could enforce that........ if it could be used to access....... say someone hacked google, put some crap up there, holy crap, ever ISP will go outa biz.
tell em to piss off
Well they Govt already sticks racks used by Asio (Australian version of CIA) into ISPs or at least ensure they have a port available if they decide to wheel their rack in. Maybe they can put them to good use and inform us if they detect the Kiddy Porn and then we won't have to worry about trawling through our already overflowing abuse emails "as much" in our vast quantities of spare time
meridian at tha.net
Just bundle Weathercast with the ISP software and let Windows do the rest!
End of Line.
Set up a non-transparent firewall requiring everyone to use a web proxy to access the internet at large. Then, whenever someone accesses a file ending in .gif, .jpg, .bmp or .png using their browser, forward a copy of that file to the police along with a note stating that it may be an example of child pornography and asking them to investigate further. That should put you in complete compliance with the law.
From the article:
Under the new laws, an ISP or ICH will face penalties of $11,000 for the individual and $55,000 for body corporates if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography or child abuse material and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time.
What that equates to is if child porn is reported to the ISP/webhost, they have to then report it to the Australian police quickly or face penalties. This isn't some ridiculous content-policing scheme - its just imposing a penalty on those who don't forward child pornography reports to the police at a reasonable pace.
The legislation does not require ISPs to monitor customer usage to pick up on illegal use. It is purely there to ensure that when an ISP becomes aware of specific content, that they report it.
To read an official summary of the legislation, check out this site: http://www.ag.gov.au/ISPresponsibilities
It will also be a federal offence, carrying a penalty of 10 years' jail, for a person to use the internet to access, transmit or make available child pornography or child abuse material.
Does this mean you could do 10 years for googling effective ways to spank a child?
Use a sniffer and hire people to check the logs and enter every site they see.
I can do it for little money if you want, just ask for it.
ajf
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I'm sure the government is now trying to work out how to get the voice telcos to report that their voice networks can be used to arrange child abductions by groups of pedophiles too.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
From the article: "... and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time."
From the article, it sounds more like ISPs will be required to notify authorities if they are made aware of a specific instance of child pornography.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
What's the age of kiddie-porn in Australia. I ask because I have faint knowledge of sites like "hush-hush.com", and they're based in Australia with TOS specifying that all models, in accordance with Australian law, are sixteen or older, which is at variance with the American standard of eighteen or older.
So this law might have significantly different effect there, considering how many sixteen and seventeen year olds own cheapass webcams.
Damn it, now I sound all creepy. But I really am curious.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
For gods sake read the new ruling first. Then make comments.
a) It's not a new law it's merely an amedment to the existing legislation
b) It only kicks in if the ISP is found to know about access to or hosting of child porn. It does *not* expect the ISP to watch for access to child porn. It is merely an incentive for ISP's to actually report access to or hosting of child porn rather than wiping/disconnecting user and pretending it never happened.
Yes I'm aware of what the media is saying. It's the medias job to beef up things like this and it keeps the "won't anyone think of the children!" brigade happy.
The law does not force ISP's to do filtering, it does not expect them to block access to child porn site it only ensures that ISP's report known access/hosting to the AFP within a decent time frame. Something just about every sysadmin with a sense of ethics would do in any case here in Australia in any event.
The link, repeated below, seems to say that they only have to notify police if they are made aware of possible access, I suppose it's not so bad if all they have to do is forward the url to the coppers, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it. "Under the new laws, an ISP or ICH will face penalties of $11,000 for the individual and $55,000 for body corporates if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography or child abuse material and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time."
*The maze has many windings, which you are yet to traverse*
Austrailian reglators just want an excuse to look for child porn.
because, as you know, looking at dead bodies turns you into a murderer
Worked for me. How fitting that home videos of the act of hacking children into little bits is okay as long as they are not naked.
Loable decision... clap-clap-clap!
There are ways to detect this kind of activities, maybe not a precise tool, but on any server can be installed some kind of customized packet sniffer that detects file names (for images or compressed files), emails from mailing lists, attachments, etc. Of course that any person knowing this can take care to not be so obvious.
Anyway, I think this is a good (not enough) step to prevent or stop in some way this degrading activity. I take my hat of for this, anyone who has childrens should support any effort to stop child abuse.
Recave
For every politcal/social related slashdot there is 0.01% that actually decides to do some real research on the topic, and 99.99% flinging poo around.
And whenever I finally find a post by that 0.01% I find myself with 0 mod points. Guess I should meta-moderate more often.
--- "End Of Line" - MCP
Under the new laws, an ISP or ICH will face penalties of $11,000 for the individual and $55,000 for body corporates if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography or child abuse material and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time.
It sounds like the impact of the new law is that if someone phones/emails an ISP and reports a kiddie porn web site, that ISP has to pass it on to police.
What does Roland Piquepaille think about this? People want to know.
How'd you know?!
You aren't fearless leader in disguise, are you???
Seiously How are they even going to try to enforce this? Unless They have an army of trained web-content filtering monkeys, it's going to be next to impossible.
The first one who mentions freenet gets a piece of candy...
This law is insane. Goodbye to every ISP in Australia if they actually enforce this. I am guessing that it won't really be enforced.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Our right to look at kiddie porn. AM I RITE?
Laws such as these also have a flip side, implied or specifically stated. As long as an ISP has reasonable grounds for making a report, the law gives protection from harrassing lawsuits by the pervert who is being reported.
Quite a few Slashdot readers need to grow up and quit whining "how on earth" every time society demands that they demonstrate some responsibility for others--in this case horribly abused children.
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
Computer, camera and auto manufacturers should stop making these items which can be used in the creation and distribution of child porn, hotels house child porn makers and provide a haven for them, schools don't keep the children 24 hours a day, making the children available to pornographers, parents had the children in the first place, obviously leading to child porn, politicans consume most of the child porn, and Ayers Rock hasn't gone and fallen on the pornographers.
It seems rather clear to me that this still has not been taken to extent it needs to be to prevent all child porn. Why aren't lawmakers doing their jobs?
And when is someone going to go after the children? They obviously have something to do with it - they're in all of it. Geez, do I have to fix your big fence too? Get some priorities! Go after the problem, not the symptoms!
Slashdotter's rights to molest little children and send picx to each other!
Australian Police: "Dammit, why do people keep sending us links to Google Images?"
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And although I'm not a proud NRA, card carrying member, their point resonates here as well. ISP's don't exploit childern, people exploit childern.
Perhaps that's a terrible analogy but you get my point. Maybe I should just RTFA!
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
when even the editor/original poster have not RTFA in its entirety. It clearly shows that if it comes to the attention of an ISP, then they must (by law) pass it on.
You know...I heard saw the Slashdot title on "Report Child Porn" in the RSS feed and I seriously was wondering why the editor was asking for links to child porn sites. A travesty indeed!
Since when has context been important, anyway?!?
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
The reports on other news channels say they must report it, IF they know about it. Not police it. Sounds good to me, unless you support child porn.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
If _looking_ at child porn is illegal (presumably because it gives the viewer an uncontrollable urge to go out and rape little children)
That's not why it's illegal to look at child porn. It's illegal as a way to reduce the demand, which in turn reduces the incentive for producers to create more child porn.
One of the main complaints of current laws is that there is no intent written into the law. It is an interesting age that using your own computer can instantly be a felony should you mis-type a URL, a trojan from an exploit begins pop-ups or Googled more than you expected.
People seem to think that just because your computer is in your home that you are safe. The computer is a doorway that can let every seedy thing in the world find a way into your house and should be treated as such.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
No, this law only requires that ISPs forward customers' reports about child porn to the authorities. The Slashdot summary is totally incorrect.
- First, make sure it is very easy to contact you with any complaint from anyone who sees child pornography either via your network or posted anywhere on your system. Make sure that this abuse contact information is easily and publicly visible on your Web pages, email sigs, billing correspondence, etc.
- Make sure you have logs and make it clear that any suspected violation of this law will be sent straight to the coppers. That in itself will scare off any perps--as long as you can make them aware of it.
- Ask your customers to help you and encourage them to report any violations they see.
- Kill your NNTP servers. Usenet is dead anyway.
You've done your job, and that should be enough. Anyway, my general opinion on the topic is that anyone who is interested in seeing child porn should be required to have some serious psychiatric treatment, preferably at their own expense. Anyone who sells it for profit should be put away for a good long stretch. For anyone who actually makes it, they should get double of both and some more besides.Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
If you look at child porn for titillation and don't report it, it's pretty hard to argue that you aren't condoning an illegal and immoral act. This is more like a person knowing that a soldier got injured in a war, but not telling the military because he gets his rocks off on seeing people die.
English is easier said than done.
The law only requires that ISPs forward customers' reports about child porn to the authorities. The Slashdot summary is totally incorrect.
There are no issues like you mention, because this story is total rubbish.
Slandering the Australian Government is tradition on Slashdot, but this story really takes the cake.
If they want you to report all possible kidie porn, the solution is obvoius. Make it not your problem. Give them logs of every recorded accesses from all your users, no matter where they access. Let them decided that its not kiddie porn. I suspect their little windows email server will crash and die under the strain of even a small isp in complaince. Soon the authorties will discover (which we already know) that this is insane, and that there is no way to monitor what people are doing. So just hack up your squid logs to copy to their email box, sit back, and watch the fun!
Yes, this is what happens for those of us lucky enough to live in a country governed by Luddites...
Okay, let me be the devil's advocate here. I think this is ridiculous. I'm not a pedophile by any means, but this is nothing but clear-cut censorship. A lot of people think piracy is bad, so is it okay for ISPs to restrict full access to it? A lot of people think porn is bad... Restrict? A lot of people think controversial news stories are bad. Restrict? I don't think so. Lack of child porn isn't going to make pedophiles go away. In fact, without an outlet, there's a chance that they'll turn to the real thing. There are LOTS of closet pedophiles around, and I'm sure that if they lost this outlet they would decide to come out of the closet and do something horrible. We all know a 5 year old girl won't file rape charges.
We just had a nut job running around raping everything that moved. It included old women, young women, boys, and girls (and probably some poor dogs that did not move fast enough). ppl like that need to be stopped. While I do not believe in captial punishment (except for treason), I do think that nuts jobs like this should be locked up for life with a bunch of Al Qaeda. They can torture each other.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you look at child porn for titillation and don't report it
Report what exactly? It's just a photo or movie. I guess you could turn yourself in and spend some time in federal prison just for having such material on your hard drive. Seeing a movie or picture of a murder or dead body is not illegal. The real crime has already been committed by the time the photo/movie has been circulated. These are just knee jerk laws written by people who want to look like they are doing something about the problem of child abuse.
whats interesting to note is that the former is illegal but the latter is perfectly legal.
I have a better idea... instead of holding the ISP liable, lets publicly execute these twisted fucks that decide to harm and destroy inoccent children.
...)
I'm not trolling, nor am I joking... I think we should crucify them... literally; or immolate them... and I don't mean a nice one-shot setting... I mean, set 'em on fire, let 'em scream till they pass out, put them out, let them "heal" in public for a few days, and then set 'em ablaze again... Same with Crucifying them... Hang 'em on the cross, let them suffer and start to asphyxiate (to the point of passing out), let them down, and do it again in the morning. Maybe, let them get publicly gang raped with broken broomsticks by angry parents in the mean time (kinda' like "the ultimate" smelling salts
That's much nicer than I would be if some sick fuck tried to hurt my precious angel. Murder would be nice, and an afterthought -- years after I started punishing them. For a person to do that sick shit to a child, any child, is fucked, and they need to be brutally tortured for a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. No quick death, no letting them be protected by their "daddy" in the joint... Private torture, torture without end, suffering that would make The Marque De Sade cringe... If they are a parent of the beautiful and inoccent life they harm, than double the torture. Fear IS a deterrent... I don't mean fear of dying, because that happens to us all, and I don't mean fear of prison, because sick fucks adopt... I mean fear of endless pain and suffering... fear of brutalization such that they cannot sleep, they go mad from the pain, only to be brought back and tortured again. There is NO crime more morally offensive the pedophiles, to run a child down in the street with your car, in cold blood, is more merciful and forgivable than to hurt a child like pedophiles do. As "offensive" as my views are, I think that to show a pedophile mercy, even with suggestions like those I've made, is more offensive.
Mods, for a change, if you disagree -- give me a reason, don't just mod me down.
Well, not sure about Australia, but in US it is perfectly legal to, for example, watch a child drown, even within your reach, and not do anything about it.
Immoral sure, but not illegal. Something to do with infringment on personal liberty by compeling you to act being the greater evil.
One easy way to help bring about social conservatism's death is to just ignore whatever legislation it's forces pass. If your under 18, take pictures/movies of yourself and/or your sexual partner in the act. Give the pictures to your friends, host it on your homepage, or upload it to kazaa/emule. Hey....I did it when I was a minor (insert joke about lack or quiality of slashdot member's sexual history here). Fucking is fun....our geekyness already limits us from enjoying it, let's not let stuckup reactionary assholes keep us from even seeing pictures of it. Discriminating by age is as bad as discriminating by race or gender. All censorship is immoral. Fuck the corporate police state and resist any restriction on the free flow of information.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Contact every small ISP in australia to report child porn...a million reports a day will kill them one at a time.
There is a major hysteria in this country right now over kiddy porn.
Even my sister is caught up in it "there's paedophiles everywhere" she says, and has basically put her kids on a leash.
To give you an idea of Australias inane thought processes we're actually trying to outlaw cameras on beaches in Sydney because someone could use one of these evil devices to take photos of kids.
Pretty fsking stupid.
I was watching question time (parliament) the other night as one of our ministers was demanding that laws be passed to force ISPs censor the internet to protect the children. WTF?
Unfortunately our media has bought the "Mass hysteria pro government anti thought machine-9000" from the American media and decided to crank it to 100.
Or is it the other way around? did you buy it from us? I mean you guys just love FOX, well it's one of our people that thought up, started and owns that shit.
I'm scared for this country.
Nope. Billarga is in New South Wales, Australia. I guess they're... owned by Rackspace... or something. The bottom of the main page says Australian laws apply. All models are 16 years or older..
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Under the new laws, an ISP or ICH will face penalties of $11,000 for the individual and $55,000 for body corporates if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography or child abuse material and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time.
The article indicates that the new law just requires that if an ISP is made aware of child abuse material accessable using their service, the ISP should inform the AFP about the material. Not that unenforcable, is it?
naked pictures of Oprah Winfrey
You know, her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Is that Australian, USA or Canadian dollars?
Virgin seem to have already forgotten that it is still only two and a half years since they moved out of the hastily developed "domestic express" terminal into the south section of the main terminal left vacant in the interim after the collapse of Ansett.
There are older ways to get people on planes and still with sufficient security.
But when somebody flies the security scare, just like the kiddy porn scare, it seems like signs of intelligent life disappear in more than just Australia.
Now if only we could penalise the mass media for propagating deliberate political lies with the same vigour as we want to use to force ISPs to censor their clients.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
The act covers any "representation, or description, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under 18 years of age". So the troll (link?) that repeatedly posts the description of fucking his grandfather as a teenager is causing slashdot to distribute child pornography. tut tut.
The ISP cannot verify the complaint for two reasons - firstly the content is protected by an access control, and secondly it's illegal for them to view the material, even to confirm what it is.
I like the way the favicon.ico for the Attorney-General's department looks like an orange three-eyed buck-toothed smiley. That gives the right note of absurdist humor.
And a conservative is what you get when you extend the vote to the ignorant...
If they know someone can 'access' illegal material, surely it would be just as easy to prevent access and 'firewall' out the bad stuff?
re hosting, yeah thats an easy one to catch.
Why doesnt Autralia as a whole have a firewall like China and make those 'dodgy' sites disappear to all.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
A liberal is what you get when you extend the right to vote to the naive.
Offensive, stupid, and that aside, not even clever. Just who do you think deserves to vote then, jackass?
The author asks - "How on earth are the ISPs ... supposed to enforce this?"
This question is misguided according to the article.
"(Liability) if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography or child abuse material and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time."
The ISPs are not the enforcers, the police are. Furthermore, it does not state that it is the duty of the ISP to try to track down infringment - but simply forward any reported infringement that comes their way. I do not find anything unreasonable here. It simply says that if the ISP is made aware that such activity is happening through their service they, by law, must report that to the police. It does not state that if such activities are happening then the ISP is liable no matter what. They are only liable if they are "made aware" and then neglect to act. I don't see anything wrong with this.
I would have to see more specific information on the law to consider it unjust. But from what the article states, I do not understand the author's alarm.
It's a political urinating contest, so it's obscene, emotive and never has to actually acheive anything. Some poor bastard of an ISP will get fined at politically convenient times to show in the press that something is being done "for the children". Carrying any USENET group these days will leave you open to being charged under existing laws anyway.
I bet it will carry a mandatory sentence, just to make sure that the sanity of a judge cannot come into play.
Lets see them try and report all the languages
From Babelfish
Child porn
kind porn
porn d'enfant
For example and what about p2p networks, every file is named.
Dick cock cum wank pussy lolita child porn illegal suck pee orgasm deepthroat nose sex duck licking asian tadpole muff diver.jpg or 12 year old eaching my gerbil while sucking off a penguin.png
There is just no way to block all this stuff because it's already so underground they only catch the idiots who put in credit card details... Not to mention image boards..
I like muppets.
Because you have a huge bandwidth draw on CP, that to me tells me how popular and lustfull it is to people. It makes me wonder just how many people are turned on to CP but would never admit to it unless there was an anonymous poll taken.
It's just sick to even think of what might be a reality check for all of humanity
Life is not for the lazy.
Who cares how, they will charge them $55000 periodically. This is the point, isen't it, and with a good reason.
Agreed, its the blind leading the blind. It will never work. The question is how is an ISP supposed to get out of this nightmare. The solution is to give all the logs of everything to the cops, thus when they come to you (a small isp admin) and say why didnt you report luser_1 the accurate response was I did, see here I emailed you all requests. I guess .AU needs "common carrier" notion. Its sad that usenet needs to die, but with people wanting to police bits, there isnt much else you can do.
Imagine trying to rescue the child, and being sued because the child is left crippled after you couldn't get them out quickly enough, or the child swallowed too much water and suffered brain damage... I'm sure it's happened before.
You're not being asked to enforce it. You're being asked to report it when you encounter it.
... to give you a list of the child porn sites that they want you to report access to.
It will keep them very busy.
There are products than can identify child pornography. For example, in the Windows world, there's Cryptic Software's Cybersight. I used to work there.
The scary thing about this is that if you are an Australian ISP, you now have to send people out looking for kiddie porn. yuck.
Remember this is the government that has reponsibility for the ".cx" domain - they don't really care child porn - they just want the votes.
The only operators they're going to be able to enforce this with will be the big fish like iiNet...although I doubt they will be able to do it even there...so most small-time sysadmins can rest easy. Laws like these are passed based on the assumption that governments can rule the Internet in the same way they govern things offline, simply because they want to. They do not seem to be able to get the fact that they are unable to do this into their utterly empty heads.
This is more of the same torch-and-pitchforks, hand over fist bungling facism that we've been seeing for years now, both here and in the US. Laws like these are written and passed by brainless, senile geriatrics who generally have only the faintest grasp of any form of technology invented since the 1970s or so.
The only law I'm in favour of passing is one that eternally bans anyone over the age of 45 from ever holding government office in any country on the planet, ever again...because there is abundant evidence that it is at about that age that a person's brain begins to decompose inside their head. We need to get the elderly *out* of the halls of government, and back into the convalescent homes/mental health system where they belong.
Yeah, and so is BSD.
On another note, the whole idea that aroused photos of a child (or even drawings of a naked child) can be considered child pornography if an adult was involved or aware of the photos somewhat confounds me. Puberty, sex, and arousal are constantly on a young person's mind. I started masturbating about age 10. I took some blurry, erotic pictures of myself about age 11. I started reading about sex in the library at age 12. I didn't start major puberty changes until 13. No doubt that there is child sexual abuse out there, but it never happened to me. I think many moral crusaders want kids to be ignorant of the huge changes going through their bodies because it advances their goals of shame, isolation, and manipulation of their mores. Exaggerated claims (and now just threats of accusations) of child pornography make many trusted sources of information back away from the conservative viewpoint of sexual development and scruples.
As an aside, I think that one day a very young kid is going to realize there's a fortune to be made in legal nude photos of themselves as a child. They'll take their parents' camcorder and make movies of him or herself doing things while naked. Dancing. Taking a shower. Demonstrating good hygiene habits. Giving an oral report on sexually transmitted diseases. Giving an anatomy lesson about changes expected during puberty. Demonstrating safe masturbation techniques. Demonstrating how to wear a jock strap or bra. Lots of things a kid should know about their body and their growth. Taking some footage of their private parts to show hair growth, bust development, and penile length. They'll wind up taking lots of footage but no adult will know they're doing this. They'll record themselves saying statements like they are the only one doing this and they aren't in any way feeling exploited by their work.
They'll keep the tape under a mattress or another safe place until age 18 and maybe even make more footage each year. Then as an adult they'll edit them with Final Cut or something into an educational DVD or video diary about puberty. They'll edit together a non-obscene film that shows them learning, awakening, masturbating, and otherwise developing their way through puberty. Then as an adult they can make whatever legal forms needed to have a valid consent.
Heck, if they want to push the envelope, they might even get try editing the footage from they used in their educational film into a more erotic and artistic expression of their feelings and emotions during that time of their life.
Too bad those pictures I made of myself at age 10 didn't come out better. They could definitely be used to illustrate a number of magazine length articles about my horniness at puberty. And I wouldn't feel in the least bit exploited that the photos were released to the public or describing my (pretty common) feelings at the time.
Two problems :
... What about this : "I'm (the police/law) sure *you* know about yourself, but did not bother to tell us. If that's not so, proove it !". ...
1) As others have allready mentioned : a law that is enforced *only part of the time* is worse than no law at all. It's too easy for the law/police to abuse their choice, and it has a distinctive negative influence on the civilian : why does one person get the full brunt of the law, and that other one not ?
2) "if you suspect abuse, you have to report it!". Well, what do I say
Yes, the good old I-have-no-proof-but-I'm-sure behaviour. It can get you in a *lot* of troubles if uttered by the wrong (as in : high-enough in power) person
How on earth are the ISPs (and web hosts -- like my own very small-time and humble company) supposed to enforce this?
Create a cron job, performing a Google search on child porn every hour. Mail the results to the local police authority with a disclaimer refering to this particular law
Don't blame me, if they charge you for being a spammer!!
[quote]Well, not sure about Australia, but in US it is perfectly legal to, for example, watch a child drown, even within your reach, and not do anything about it.
:P ) it is illegal for you to help. Well it would make litigation against you an almost certain court loss.
Immoral sure, but not illegal. Something to do with infringment on personal liberty by compeling you to act being the greater evil.[/quote]
are you sure?
Sometime in the 1990's a federal law called the Good Samaritan Act was introduced in the US
which makes it a legal responsibility to help someone in dieng/imminent danger or death.
Wouldn't someone Drowning constitute as that?
However In Aust if you arent qualified to help (First Aid, can't swim etc
Even if you get them out of the pool unless you hold a current First aid licence it is illegal to perform EAR or CPR.
Hmm. I'm having a hard time with that argument. It's a soldier's job to die, and/or to watch other people die. Forgot that, did you?
or 'Spamming'
One Ring
My one ring brings all the boys from Gondor,
And they're like, "It's better than yours"
Damn right, it's better than yours,
I can't stop now, gotta go to Mordor (2x)
I know you want it...
The thing that makes me,
What the wringwraiths crazy for,
They lose their minds, the way I whine,
(Spoken:) I think it's time.
(La-La-La-La-la) Put it on,
(La-La-La-La-la) The wringwraiths searching,
(La-La-La-La-la) Disappear,
(La-La-La-La-la) The wringwraiths searching
My one ring brings all the boys from Gondor,
And they're like, "It's better than yours"
Damn right, it's better than yours,
I can't stop now, gotta go to Mordor (2x)
I can see you're on it...
You want me to give the,
one ring that freaks these elves,
It can't be bought,
Just the thieves get caught,
Spoken (By Gollum): My precioussses!.
(La-La-La-La-la) Put it on,
(La-La-La-La-la) The wringwraiths searching,
(La-La-La-La-la) Disappear,
(La-La-La-La-la) The wringwraiths searching,
My one ring brings all the boys from Gondor,
And they're like "It's better than yours"
Damn right, it's better than yours,
I can't stop now, gotta go to Mordor (2x)
Oh, once you get involved,
Everyone will look this way, kill,
You're tougher than you look,
Sametime maintain your mithril,
Just get the perfect blend,
Plus what you have within,
Then next his eyes'll squint,
Then he's picked up your scent,
(La-La-La-La-la) Put it on,
(La-La-La-La-la) The wringwraiths searching,
(La-La-La-La-la) Disappear,
(La-La-La-La-la) The wringwraiths searching.
My one ring brings all the boys from Gondor,
And they're like, "It's better than yours"
Damn right, it's better than yours,
I can't stop now, gotta go to Mordor (2x)
Someone that actualy read the story
Access Point Live Mapping Access Points with Google
Well, the point would be that as opposed to American sites that pretend their models are all over eighteen, Australian sites pretend that their models are all over sixteen. Which---though lightning may strike me for saying so---seems a bit more sensible. Yeah, it should be illegal to employ under-18s in the porn business, but amateur stuff, y'know, shouldn't carry the Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary stigma.
Kinda like how it's legal for them (well, in my state the AoC is 16) to shag for free, but they can't do it for money. (In porn, that is.)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
My point on security was that post-9-11 preoccupations have locked in "must follow procedures" even more strongly, no matter at what the cost. I'm as much concerned by the seeming lack of public reaction to the inflexibility as I am by the inflexibility itself.
Somewhere deep down there is/was an Australian tradition of coping, of finding a way, so it's even sadder here that the nanny state is now in such ascendancy.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
Oh, please tell me there's an MP3 of that. It's almost as good as Once More With Hobbits.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Nope, Good Samaritan Act simply encourages good deeds by reducing the danger of being sued if you try to help someone. It most definitely does not "make it a legal responsibility to help someone in dying/imminent danger or death". Look it up. That would be considered (by most people although there is some controversy) an unconstitutional infringment on personal libery.
Besides, there is a whole legal minefield there. How far are you supposed to go in putting yourself at risk in helping someone? Where do you draw the line for a person needing help? For example if you live in most major cities there is probably a homeless or perhaps a starving person quite close to you right now. Are you a criminal for sitting there typing on your computer instead of helping them out?
France on the other hand does have such a law and from what I know it is difficult to apply in practice. For example photographers who took pictures of Princess Diana after her crash were charged with the something like involuntary manslaugther for failing to help. I don't think anything came out of it though.
Amateur pornstars get money? News to me. I suppose Amazon wishlists kinda count, maybe, but I wasn't thinking of that.
Imagine, if you will, a vast economy, in which boobies are traded for "Bon Jovi" CDs. This is the beginning of the Camwhore Cycle...
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
What do you mean? The IP belongs to Billarga, which bought the address space from Rackspace or something, and which is located in Australia---New South Wales, to be exact.
So... how is it that it's "clearly not hosted in Australia"?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I've seen plenty of submissions whose poster clearly hasn't RTFA.
# Somebody notifies you of one of your subscribers posting kiddie porn on a web page you host.
# You spend one minute out of your busy day viewing the web page and you suspect that it may indeed be kiddie porn.
# Person walks by and happens to catch you looking at kiddie porn.
# So he/she tell the authorities.
# You never read Slashdot again.
Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
Thanks God I live in Europe:
DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC
Where an information society service is provided thatconsists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, on condition that:
(a) the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and, as regards claims for damages,is not aware of facts or circumstances from which theillegal activity or information is apparent; or
(b) the provider, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access tothe information.
It's a good idea, but seems to be impossible to enforce, a bit like peace on earth and food for all people...
Norways largest ISP, Telenor, cooperates with with a special branch of the police. This branch of the police reports childporn sites to Telenor (the ISP), wich then adds this URL to a filter. If anyone tries to enter this URL they will be redirected to a informationpage hosted by the police.
n epornofilter.html
Here is some info (in norwegian):http://www.online.no/datasikkerhet/bar
Look at what defines child porn.
US: Sexual acts depicted on women under the age of 18
UK: Sexual acts depicted on women under the age of 16
So it's sick if you bang a 17 yo in the US but fine and healthy to do it in the UK.
Also, the US proposed a law saying that child porn would include poses by adult women dressed up as underage girls (no dressing up as a tarty schoolgirl!).
Legally, kiddie porn is banging a young woman. According to what is used as the reason for all the draconian laws and rights removal, kiddie porn is screwing six year olds.
In several cases, the molester (not always male!) was assaulted as a child. They've been fucked up in the head and now, to prove they are grown up, they do what grown ups did to them.
Sad, but not sick.
Personally, I don't recognise kiddie porn. I recognise rape. I understand that even consentual sex may not be correct if the situation is such that consent is not informed (rape drugs, retarded adults, young children), but that is only loosly correlated with age.
Think about this: it used to be absolutely fine and dandy to marry at nine (especially if you were royalty). Now we say "you must be 16" or 18, or 21, or 14... The fact that the age of consent changes shows that there is a band where it's not right, but it may not be wrong.
For these reasons and more, I will not demonise people accused of child abuse.
Alas, it seems to be yet another act of entirely pointless legislation (sadly all to common all over the world) and a waste of tax payers money and parliamentary time.
All the law says is that they are NOT allowed to turn a blind eye when someone complains about child porn hosted on or transmitted through their facilities. Then all they have to do is forward the complaint on to the police for action.
I would assume it is illegal for them not to report it to the police in Australia, although I don't know what the legal situation is there I'd wager they already legally bound to report all criminal activity (and I'm sure possession of child pornography falls into that category).
What is it with politicians and trying to push through redundant legislation for causes in the public eye?
Surely it's more efficent and appropriate to ensure we are enforcing the appropriate laws we do have - and if they are unenforceable, amend them appropriately rather than create an unfathomable myriad of narrow 'crime specific' laws (especially ones like this which will almost never be used, and merely serve to justify bureaucracy).
easy !
...
They just have to put in their hosting contract that child porn is illegal, and if they find somebody who has child porn, he has to pay them $56.000
Step one:
;-)
"Somebody notifies you of one of your subscribers posting kiddie porn on a web page you host."
Law:
"It will also be a federal offence, carrying a penalty of 10 years' jail, for a person to use the internet to access, transmit or make available child pornography or child abuse material."
Logic dictates, that, at least in the normal case, a person has to have accessed CP material before he can notify someone there is CP on a site. Ergo, he faces 10 years' jail.
Your points 2, 3 and 4 don't even come into the picture.
Well, ok, apart from the last one.
Seriously though; I sometimes wonder if ppl aren't right and the laws become too much based on hysteria and not on well-thought of reasonings. One prime example that comes to mind, is that 'child abuse' case (got mentionned on slashdot some time ago) where an underage teen got busted for showing erotic pictures of *herself*. She got sentenced for possessing and distributing CP, but the only CP she had was what she took of herself. Aparently she was the victim of a childmolester, even though she was the childmolester in question. This makes no sense.
Arresting young people as childabusers because they show sexual oriented pictures of themselves somehow seems rather the work of hysteria, not reason.
For sure, there is childabuse, but laws should be tailored to the effect they want to achieve in a strict sense, which, in this case, should be to protect a kid from abuse. The truth is, it is often more about imposing morals then about protecting kids, and while this is not always contradictory to eachother, in some cases, it gets obvious what prevails (at least in the USA).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
surely its more efficient not to post until you have thought the question through?
Unless you look.
Then you're a paedo.
So then you get an exception passed to allow ISP members to look at CP suspected sites.
So then paedos join the ISP.
I didn't think they had paedophiles in Australia ..... I thought the dingos did their job for them .....
shut down that damn internet-thing! it's destroying the world! but seriously, something must be done, however difficult it is. "It can not be emphasised enough that behind every horrid piece of child pornography is a tragic case of an abused defenceless child, somewhere in the world," Senator Ellison said.
There's nothing too profound behind this sig.
So, if an ISP's employee finds child porn on their servers they have to report it to the police or the ISP will be fined?
Big deal, what sort of asshole wouldn't report child porn to the police if they found it on their servers (or anywhere else for that matter)?
As far as I can tell from the intro they don't even have to go looking for it, just file a report if they discover criminal material. The fine is not for hosting or publishing specific content but for failing to reporting an egregious crime.
I just don't see a problem here; any halfway decent person or company would not be affected by the law as they would report any child porn they became aware of anyway.
~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
Well, if you stick to the letters of that, then obviously, *every* ISP would have to report *immediately* that it can be used to access child porn. Even when they don't know where or how it could be found, the fact that they provide access to the Internet is enough to say with certainty that they can be used, just like a phone company can be used to discuss crimes over the phone.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
This is just capitalism at work. The large ISP can absorb $55k quite easily while the small ISP cannot. Hence, the small ISP goes out of business creating a larger customer base for the already large ISP. This is the way it's done in Amerika, and one of the reasons most countries hate them.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.
Does it work with common law ? In this case a decent lawyer who knows the word "brocard" should be able to defend any ISP.
Yeah, but this is someone reporting this to an ISP, who then need to forward it to the AFP. Why don't people just send it to the AFP? Maybe they won't know to do so.
Hmmmm.... Fridge Magnet time again....
Easy.
ISP runs as normal.
Someone sees you can get child porn through their connection. If they are ordinary, wholesome human beings, they will report it to their ISP.
ISP blocks such content and informs police of location on net.
The police cannot arrest ISP executives for simply not blocking content they never
knew about.
(Google and Google Images don't show Child Porn do they? Or Nazi images in France, either. Or Scientology-debunk sites. It seems it's really easy to block content on request..)
Neko
Under the new laws, an ISP or ICH will face [prosecution] if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography ... and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time.
...
What that equates to is if child porn is reported to the ISP/webhost, they have to then report it to the Australian police quickly or face penalties. This isn't some ridiculous content-policing scheme
Balderdash. There is only one problem with what you say the law "equates to" -- it DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS. By the very language of the law, any ISP who gives general access to the internet is "aware" that he gives access to various newshosts which include groups and postings falling into the kiddie porn category. This is "reasonable grounds to believe" their service "can be used" to access kiddie porn. PERIOD. Either they have to try to block ALL POSSIBLE newshosts, and ALL PROXY HOSTS, etc, etc, also (an utterly impractical idea), or they face prosecution.
I.e., this law criminalizes all ISPs. Why should we be surprised? It is the goal of the state to "have something" in reserve on every citizen, so they can make life Hell for anyone they may choose to, for any reason.
Just because kiddie porn is the fashionable boogeyman of the times does not mean that insane and useless laws should be enacted. Participating in kiddie porn is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
Personally I'd like to see a definitive criteria of the what the Federal Police will label Child Pornography.
...but the de facto state of the law is that you were in fact producing child pornography (presuming the pictures qualify). If you were above the minimum age of prosecution, but below the required age (which in some cases are age of consent, but mostly higher), you could go to jail. To keep them after you passed the age of prosecution would be possession of child pornography, and in the eyes of the law it does not matter if the subject is yourself or someone else. Likewise for distribution.
To take a simple example from here:
You must be 14 to be prosecuted.
You must be 16 to be of legal age.
You must be 18 to be in a sexual picture/movie (actually, we're implementing that now, up from 16).
If you're 13 at the time, you can't be prosecuted for production, but for possession when you reach 14 (and still have them).
If you're 15 at the time, you can be prosecuted both for production and possession.
If you're 17 at the time, you can also be prosecuted both for production and possession.
The law is rather peculiar this way. Two 17 year olds could fuck as much as they want, and it's legal. But if they take a picture of it, it is child pornography, even though both are above the age of consent, and may consent all they like.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What is 'made aware of'? If the bits of kiddie porn pass through an ISP's equipment, is not the ISP 'aware' of the existance of this information? If a corporation can have an 'opinion' (and have the right to express it), then logically it should be held accountable for what it 'knows'.
So, do the likes of UPS, DHL, Royal Mail pay fines each time they carry something illegal? Are they supposed to start inspecting every single letter/package?
Um... no. Your step 2 ("You spend one minute out of your busy day viewing the web page and you suspect that it may indeed be kiddie porn.") is invalid and illegal. Illegal because if it _IS_ kiddie porn, it's illegal to view such a thing even for "good" reasons. Dumb law, but there it is. Secondly, even if the site in question happens to be "http://www.google.com" and you're highly confident that the images there do not constitute kiddie porn, aren't you still required to report it?
Australian amateur-erotica sites such as ishotmyself.com use 18 as the minimum age, presumably because they are accessible from the US, and could be prosecuted if pictures of 17-year-olds were downloaded from the US. Sites from Britain (another jurisdiction where the age of consent is 16) do similarly.
Because of the US's prominence and economic clout, 18 has become the de facto international age of consent for nude photography, despite there being no international photo-erotica treaty or anything. No site operator wants to block out American customers (of whom there are a lot), or to have to avoid flights stopping in US-controlled territories to avoid being arrested and bundled off to a US federal prison like a common paedophile.
With that in mind, aren't we glad Saudi Arabia isn't a major force on the internet and popular international destination.
Yes, you read that right.
Instead of submitting to the mass hysteria that surrounds child pornography, it would do anyone well to try to separate their emotions from the issue and observe it with an objective point of view.
I'm sure we can all agree that the sexual abuse of children is a degrading practice, and I have no qualms with fighting against it and seeking to get medical treatment for pedophiles and such abusers.
However, why are we are as a society so intent on banning _images_ of instances of sexual abuse?
While I can agree that the spreading of these images may be degrading to the child, the most damage done to the child's psyche has been done the moment he/she has been coerced to be in an image, in child pornography. The crime is the act of taking the picture, not the picture itself.
So why are we so intent on hunting down these very images, when we should be focused on hunting down the people who commit these acts? Anyone can accidentally download child pornography, it should be no reason to arrest anyone. Just because someone happens to have it does not mean they have committed sexual abuse in any way, or that they have supported it. I can live with it being used as a clue to seek out abusers, but having the images on your hard drive is hardly a crime.
I believe society is pressing down on child pornography as a way to try to take revenge on abusers, to simply show its distaste for them by banning the images they may enjoy viewing. I find this no viable basis for law enforcement action.
In fact, I find it a threat to freedom of speech and expression. Because of this attitude, completely fictional pornography depicting underaged people, that is, children (in, say, Japanese erotic comics), is in danger of being legislated against, even though _no actual crime has been committed when creating it_. The artist has used his/her imagination and drawn images of fantasy, and we would deny their right to self expression because we find their thoughts distasteful and against social norms.
If that is not infringing on free speech, I don't know what is. Never mind the fact that child pornography can be used as a shotgun method of infringing on the independence and freedom of other venues of free speech, the Internet being the prime example. We should stop helping the politicians use it as a bludgeon.
In many ways, this law is not dissimilar from what is required of teachers, nurses, police, social workers and a couple of other allied professions in Australia already. This policy is known as Mandatory Notification.
If you are a member of the professions above, and you have a reasonable suspicion that a child is being abused or neglected, then you are legally bound to report that abuse to the authorities, under threat of a $2500 fine. You are only bound legally while you are discharging your professional duties (if you see something on the weekend there is no legal obligation).
Also, you can only get into trouble if you suspect abuse and fail to report it, not if you simply failed to notice it - in this way, the policy is similar to this law.
The key point of all this, of course, is that despite all the legal mumbo-jumbo I've just detailed above, there are certain moral obligations incumbent on people. If, as a teacher, I failed to report suspected abuse I observed outside of school hours, I may not be legally culpable, but I would be morally culpable.
So it is with this law, at least on the face of it. This simply presents ISPs with a reasonable and not especially onerous obligation to report kiddie porn as they find it, which frankly anyone more moral than Hannibal Lecter should be pretty happy to do anyway.
There will be inevitable arguments about "but what constitutes kiddie porn" and "who decides what is moral". The bottom line is (and as mandatory notifiers, we get taught the same thing): if you're not sure, report it. If it's deemed to be kiddie porn, then you've done a good thing. If it isn't then no harm done.
Don't mistake me for one of those "Won't somebody pleeeeeeease think of the children??" types. I am in favour of moderate, reasonable obligations that give people an extra incentive to keep their basic priorities straight. In no way should ISPs, or indeed anyone other than law enforcement, be required to have an active role in pursuing and apprehending offenders.
Laws do not serve to give people a heart, but they can restrain the heartless. Any ISP that places their financial and business obligations above their basic moral obligations to the society in which they live will now have to wear a similar burden to those members of other professions listed above.
SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.
Here in Italy it's a crime not helping someone in danger of death. Of course this cannot be applied in the corner cases you mentioned, as they are made up borderline cases to put the law down. Note that, however, calling 118 (the emergency) is usually enough (and actually it should be the only thing you should do, if you are not a trained medical). This law is enforced in so many cases you can't even think of. And it's good.
If I were running an ISP I'd simply automatically forward all mail to the child porn reporting address at my (ISP) domain to the police's child porn reporting address... just to see how they like sifting through all the crap/frivolous complaints such an abuse address would get.
You're not. You're supposed to go out of business leaving more room for the large ISPs. That's the point of laws like this. Screw the little guy, which is ironic if you think about it!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Basicly, what it means is that if an ISP finds or is made aware of child porn on its network, it has to report that to the police.
A: "This person seems to be downloading gigs of stuff! He MUST be downloading child porn or illegal movies"
B: "Um sir, it looks like he is just downloading Linux ISOs"
A: "Linux what? Look, we can't take a chance and get fined. Report him, and let the police worry about it."
Your opinion doesn't count.
You may not want to demonize child abuse, but I do, as well as its apologists, which you certainly appear to be.
Arguing that child porn isn't evil or doesn't even exist because different legislatures have used different age categories when codifying its prohibition is inane and specious. Different locations have different speed limits, too. Would you argue, then, that speed limits do no exist and should not exist?
The ame applies to your attempt at historical analysis. The legal age for marriage has always varied, and still varied, from one society to the next. This is because the "legal age" for marriage is not, and should not be, synonymous with the age at which we come to sexual maturity.
Your argument boils down to the same kind of childish, petulant, arrogant and ultimately unconvincing argument so abundantly produced by the adolescents who post here.
If the Australian government wants its ISP's to block sites carrying illegal material, it ought to supply ISP's with a list of IP addresses to block. If the law doesn't provide for that, then it needs to be fixed. End of story.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I was going to sit here and make a post about the emotional trauma one goes through after being molested.
I was going to state that now as a man, it is hard not to think back to what happened. On how 14 year olds look cute and I have to resist looking for child porn sites.
I think its completly disgusting.
However, sir, you are a complete moron who tries to state facts of a subject you are completly ignorant of.
Sexual molestation haunts you the rest of your life and can seriously affect sex drive.
It takes me a while to reach a climax with my girlfriend. It takes me a while to reach climax with masterbation. Sometimes I even can't. I easily get aroused at women pertained as children and wish I could date a hot, young looking 18 year old. (but I have a girlfriend who I want to stay serious with)
I'm 21, male, and was molested by two different people from 2-12 years old.
Don't you dare tell me that we are NOT locked into a behavior because of what happened to us as children. It is very, very difficult to overcome your sexual erges.
I can't imagine that someone would try to host child porn on a plain web site... I assumed this stuff was deep underground. Hosting on a web site, even with a stolen credit card, is just asking for big trouble.
They just log everything you do, and hire staff to go thru it all.
Then of course charge back the costs to their customers as it wont be cheap. "cost of doing business".
And if you hit encrypted pages, they will just report that as suspicious behavior to the government.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You're acting like this is some grevious tragedy... oh no! whatever will we do now! we can't look at kiddie porn! how could the government do that! ISP's should hide our secret child porn activities!
...
*COUGH*
!@
We've had thoughtcrime in our drug laws for a while.
Possession with intent to distribute is a much stiffer penalty than possession, and the burden of proof isn't that much. Two bags of pot in your pocket (say you have low grade and high grade and want to keep them separate for the same reason you don't pour all your wine into a big jug) and you can get slapped with possession w/intent.
I'm certainly not condoning child porn or whatever, just stating that "thought crime" has been alive and well in our society for some time now.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
www.hotkids.com.au seems to be down! Anyway else having trouble connecting?
reportchildport@myisp.net
:)
Child Port? You mean... like that port of Mosaic to Windows that resulted in IE? Yeah, someone needs to report that crap
Use Websense, isn't that the answer to all censorship.
I hate Websense.
You wouldn't believe the things you see in your Gnutella search monitor when your node contains songs by Sex Gang Children and Lolita Storm. I wonder if my ISP has reported me yet?
Actually, that would be closer to the French system.
Not convincing the prosecuter the subject is of age is enough to get you into court, which, while bad enough already, isn't a conviction. The prosecuter then has to convince the jury that the subject in the picture is underage, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense attorny would probably have some interesting research expenses with things titled "barely legal", and the jury would be exposed to a smattering of very young looking 21 year olds. Think about the various high school shows. Most of the "teens" in that are actually over 21. In the states, while 18 is the "legal" age for sex (some states vary as for age and circumstances), 21 is usually the legal age for porn. On the other hand the prosecuter would be trying to track down the "model" to prove that she(or he!) was underage.
I remember some family was prosecuted once for taking pictures of their baby during bath time. I saw a waist up sample of one of them, and it shows a happy baby waving a bright toy around.
I don't read AC A human right
She was what? 16 when she started out in porn. Got her fake id and convinced everyone in the industry for several years that she was infact legal.
When she dislclosed that she was a minor when she made a lot of her movies, it damn near wrecked the porn biz. Hundreds of videos were made illegal overnight, hundreds of guys were guilty of statutory rape.
I am pretty sure she knew exactly what she was doing, when she signed up to do porn. So what now? is it child porn? Was she mature enough to make up her own mind?
So where is the boundary of where child porn is decided? If I'm under 18 and so is my girlfriend and i take a consentual nude picture, I would be guilty of making child porn. I don't think thats right, but at some point a line has to be drawn as to what point a person is still a child sexually. That line seems very broad nowadays.
--
Registered .sig quotient : 1337
"Since we are connected to the Internet, our network can be used to access child porn or any other information not under our control that anyone, anywhere, chooses to make available. We hereby inform the police that this is the way networks function."
Since I work for an ISP and actually had a customer ask me about whether or not we would shut him off and report him or just shut him off he was browsing child porn.
I just kinda sat there blinky eyed for a few minutes.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
Try thinking of all the millions of kids you DON'T see on TV who go to bed every night and lay there dreading the moment when "mommyy's special friend" or daddy or the babysitter arrives. Try thinking of the hundreds who get killed every year by a parent who you DON'T see on the evening news because it's just some local redneck couple.
One kid in the pageant scene gets killed, you try to blame the pageants? I guess she strung herself up with that electrical cord out of shame.
This is only a good thing. If someone notifyes an isp of childporn you should be reqired to report this to the proper officials and hopefully they shoot the f*cks who distribute this sick sh*t.
You, sgant, obviously are no exception. After reading the AC post, I was left with the impression that *he* (the victim) was lamenting the fact that he was put in bondage by the molesters. He obviously has taken great strides to shake off the shackles. At no point did he suggest that he has "to go out and molest a child."
It's a tough road I'm sure. I'm sure you have really bad feelings and yes, it will haunt you the rest of your life...but think about the kid that you may molest. Do you want to condem him or her to a lifetime of horror?
Sexual urges are one thing...ACTING on those urges is another. Seek help and GET help...it's ok to get help you know. We all need a little help in our lives. And do not act on your urges. I wish you well.
Nice try at backpedalling from your initial troll post.
you're right...but I tend to demonize everyone anyway, regardless of guilt. But I'm an asshole, your milage may vary.
From your lips to God's ears.
*hisses*
In light of this brilliant scheme, I think we should enact another law that will eliminate most crime.
From now on, the owner, operator, or maintainer of any road will have to report any crime that occurs where the criminals used roads to arrive at the scene, depart from the scene, transport goods or materials or persons, or to return home from committing a criminal act.
This should eliminate non-internet crime altogether, right?
Jim
Here is all you need to know about spanking.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
In other news, Google which can be searched upon to find this crap via groups.google.com or images.google.com, as well as YaHoo which has YaHoo groups of this nature, are now blocked by the great firewall of Australia. As is ALL traffic.
./ with this p orn and someone from Queensland visits ./?
This is like the US Federal government telling the owners of toll ways that if they allow criminals or those committing criminal acts to pass over their toll ways, then the toll way owners can be held responsible.
It is just as hard to determine if that 18 wheeler paying a via EZPass has child porn in the cab as it is over the internet.
And what happens if a hacker replaces these ad's at the top of
and anything that could be called "porn" and you'll automatically block all child porn.
;-)
Staying in business whilst doing so is left as an excercise for the reader.
--
AC
or SkyCache, as it used to be called. Colloquially known as "SkyPorn" because only the porno guys ever paid their bills.
Did the big ISPs fight this legislation very hard? I didn't think so!
Australian ISP's are not being required to look for/detect child porn. The law only codifies their moral obligation to report a crime which (for whatever reason) they have good reason to suspect has taken place.
One of those rare instances when I find myself in agreement with legislators regarding the internet.
They are reporting child porn being available via an ISP. That means they viewed the CP. Thus, by definition, they are guilty of viewing CP, and will probably be charged.
Think that's far fetched? In this totalitarian system we live in, there is a long standing tradition of shooting the messenger.
Would you dare to report it if you stumbled across it? Or would you just run a secure delete on your browser cache and move on?
- It will also be a federal offence, carrying a penalty of 10 years' jail, for a person to use the internet to
- access, transmit or make available child pornography or child abuse material.
You see, I would never EVER report child pornography if doing so meant being arrested as a child pornographer. If you report it, then it stands to reason that you've accessed it.I remember a case a couple of years back in which child porn showed up on Microsoft's linkexchange banner network. Regular people shopping for professional football cheerleader calendars were greeted with the porn. I hope you aussies don't surf web sites that host linkexchange banners.
First off, it's odd that the parent here wasn't modded just a wee bit flame-bait.
:-)). And you know what? I figured out that it's not that big a freaking deal after all.
Here it goes:
The problem with society's views on child pornography and child sexual abuse truly do little to stop it. Sure, you can catch someone who has abused a child, but that doesn't make that child's life any better.
As an experiment, tell your girlfriend or wife (or mother or friend or boss), "I have a serious problem, and I need help. Although I have never touched a minor, I desire sex with them." Would that result in any more than goodbye girlfriend, goodbye wife, goodbye job, goodbye friendship?
There is such an air of shame surrounding it. There is always a desire to return to traumatic experiences and relive them so that you can work through them. This is why people tend to get into relationships that mirror their parents' relationship.
What causes the most damage to abused children is the shame and blame society places on them. Not the act. I was abused as a child and in my teenage years I conciously took it upon myself to work through my shame and guilt and self-hatred by having sex with an older male (I'm a straight male. I welcome the sh*tstorm.
If people were allowed to talk about these traumatic experiences, they'd be less inclined to repeat the mistakes of their abuser(s) in the hopes of gaining some respite.
So I might conclude: YOUR opinion doesn't count.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I work for an ISP, it's easy to get suspicious when someone wants to register littlegirls.com or something equally disgusting. There have been times where a hostmaster that I know has taken this info to the managment and they allowed it to go through.
Here's an idea, needs refinement though
.) and start funneling it towards the people doing it with the kids.
1. Legalize posession of child pornography-- in fact, encourage people to send an organization the fragment of the path you followed to get to it, and a copy of new porn!
2. Educate the children better-- Explain to them sex, STDs, pregnancy, morality, religion, why people want to, and why people don't want to. Don't try to scare tactic them with STDs, because by the time they hit 14 they'll figure it out and the effect will be reversed ("oh wtf they were feeding me crap, most people I know don't have AIDS *goes out and gets HIV*"). Lay down the policy on them too, i.e. tell them you don't want them having sex. Still, explain protection to them; kids don't normally ask your permission before doing something stupid.
3. Capitalize-- Take the path fragments and reports of new child porn people send you, try to ID the faces in it, and liesurely follow the path back to the video camera and the penis.
4. Arrest-- Stop spending 98% of PROTECT action on arresting people who just wank while watching child porn (this protects nobody, it just scares them into thinking actually DOING it would be safer. .
Not all people who look at child porn are child molesters; yet not all of them are innocent. Children, however, are too naiive, and need to be taught better.
Even with proper countermeasures rather than wild confused attempts to keep kids from thinking about sex and track down people with a valid psychological attraction to children which can't be helped any more than the basic desire to have sex can be (note that you can chose NOT to have sex, but you can't chose not to WANT to), the severity of the situation is only reduced.
I live in the real world; idealists are morons and this is the result we get. "Acceptable losses" is an ugly term that means "If we ease back and let X happen, we'll stop >>X from happening; there are no alternatives that harm X." Idealists are those who say "Realists are pessimists and we know we can stop everything and make a perfect world." Aim your goals higher-- that means letting a few small things go so you can get a better guarantee at halting the bigger problems.
I applaud the efforts of sites like jackinworld who show the danger of this "Goto" style of education and are able to use the internet to sidestep some legal troubles that one might have if they did this sort of "shared wisdom" in a face-to-face manner.
I realize the law lacks specifying the "intent" of the pictures and it therefore makes it a crazy patchwork of judge's rulings. So Kjella is probably right that self-made and self-published photos would be attempted to be prosecuted under today's law.
But all cases I'm aware of that did this had an adult involved at some point (giving them the idea, lending them the camera knowing their likely intent, etc). Is the same true if the child is completely without adult influence?
Compare masturbation without adult influence and masturbation with adult influence. While I feel that someone like Michael Jackson paying to watch a 12 year old masturbate is child molestation, I think that a janitor who accidentally walks in on a 12 year old masturbating in a stall but then abruptly leaves is a different intent. Though not tested legally, this would probably change the legal patchwork (if a case like this ever made it to court.)
Taking naked underage photographs of yourself with no adult involvment at all seems like a similar form of self-expression as masturbation. Yes, the lack of "intent" being specified in the legal definition of child porn makes a difficult case to win. But damn it, I should be allowed to take and display photos of myself if my parents can be allowed to photograph me as a two year old with an erection or as a three month old posed like a playgirl centerfold on a bear rug. Though not spelled out, I think there is some level of "intent" that the law requires, but just a very, very low and vague standard.
Yes because child porn is the ISPs faults and they are basically responsible for it at every level. Infact they are often behind making it in the first place! This isn't exactly hard to enforce - you just scan all user traffic and check for child porn images with that magic AI system that has a 0% failure rate!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
They are not talking about making fantasies about having sex with children illegal.
They are talking about downloading pictures of child pornography (CP) illegal.
Thinking about it is still legal. Possesion of CP isn't.
If these were truly people at home just thinking about this (note just thinking, not looking, hearing, etc), this would be thought crime.
However, these are not people at home are just thinking about this. They are viewing children who have been victimized and makes the viewer a participant in the vicitimization of the child. In addition if they pay for it, which many do, they further support/promote further this activity. The folks viewing this are not sweet innocent people at home who have not effect or support of the bad things done to kids so they can get off on it.
my first reply (the previous one above) was meant for JCCyC (179760), NOT the originator of the topic (Don't demonize them).
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Don't touch that boy/girl. Instead, put them on a school bus drivin by a 65-year-old that can't see. And don't you give them any seatbelts, those are for adults ONLY!
We all dance, we all sing.
-The Streets
If you truly don't have control over yourself because you weren't able to get past the events that happened to you. You should commit yourself to a mental institution or kill yourself because that would be better than having you rape some child and having a demented vision that you were justified in it because it happened to you.
You are one sick freak.
Everyone has bad stuff happen to them. You think your situation is worse than everyone else? Get off your self-pity train and step into reality.
You sound like you're entertaining your "sexual erges" ('urges' freakshow) by viewing porn sites and having premarital sex. I have no pity for you.
You were right on.
That dude is sick in the head and needs help. If he commits a crime and tries to justify it on his past someone should shoot him in the head.
All the law says is that they are NOT allowed to turn a blind eye when someone complains about child porn hosted on or transmitted through their facilities. Then all they have to do is forward the complaint on to the police for action.
It's not "turning a blind eye" that's at issue: it's an unfair legal burden. The fact remains that criminal matters are a matter for police to solve: and rumors of crime aren't proof of crime.
The police have their own call center: forcing the ISP to act as a proxy call center for police complaints is misguided at best, and a waste of time and money at worst. The job of the police is to investigate crime: it's the job of the citizens to report it to the police.
After all, I don't complain to GM when my car is stolen. If I think a man in my building is a criminal, I call the police: not the landlord. Why should ISPs be different?
This is no worse than doctors being required to report signs of child abuse in their patients.
Yes, it is. The reason doctors are expected to report signs of child abuse is the presumption that children can't speak for themselves in such a case.
In the case of a misdirected crime report, this is clearly not the case. The person making the report is capable of, well, making the report. Remember, doctors aren't required to report "potential signs" of physical abuse in adults, because adults are capable of speaking to police directly.
If it's a (potential) crime, the rule of common sense says "call the police". The rule of law should follow the rule of common sense. The rule of law should not say, "call someone else, and force them to call the police for you".
--
AC
pedo's a fucking freaks and need to be burnt at the stake. there's no reasoning with them, they are like sick dogs and need to be put down
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
It should not be... It should be http://www.booble.com
Well yeah, to deal with it the gov has to implement laws that apply to all levels of the 'industry' involved. Like drugs, you find and prosecute the end users (even though it would be better if they got medical help usually) and then you can start finding the dealers, in this case ISP's who are unknowing carriers. Even one of our two MAJOR isp's here in aus are delivering kiddie porn through it's usenet services, I dunno how they are to remove those parts of a valuable service but at least this may be a step in the right direction. Oh and then what happens, well the industry goes more underground, you still get drugs and kiddie porn being created around the world (and the resulting abuse that causes) but it's just not highly/publically available and the gov looks to have done the job, but of course they havn't done anything to win the war.
nuff said
You sicko!
... between viewing child pornography when someone gives you a link to a site, and viewing child pornography when someone gives you a link to a site that you host? If you provide web hosting, and someone "reports" child pornography being hosted by you, are you then allowed to view it? Do we have a loophole here?
.gif file! Maybe I'd better watch for a while and see if it's animated..."
What's the acceptable viewing time for "verifying" child pornography, as opposed to (for lack of a better word) "consuming"?
"Well, she's quite clearly about 13, and definitely naked; but she's just standing there. Probably just a webcam pic... but it's a
What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" do Congress and the courts not understand?
A couple of corrections:
Here is the relevant part of the act (Section 474.25 of Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004):
474.25 Obligations of Internet service providers and Internet content hosts
A person commits an offense if the person:
(a) is an Internet service provider or an Internet content host; and
(b) is aware that the service provided by the person can be used to access particular material that the person has reasonable grounds to believe is:
- child pornography material; or
- child abuse material; and
(c) does not refer details of the material to the Australian Federal Police within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the existence of the material.You can access the full legislation in pdf from here.
Anyone who starts out saying "Your opinion doesn't count" shouldn't be anywhere a "Score 4, Insightful" regardless of what the topic is.
and what constitues 'child' under 21? under 30? under 18? acts like a juvinile?
The point is not that "child abuse does not exist." I don't know where you got that idea, although I admit - it is an attractive Straw Man.
The point is, just because someone has been accused (or even convicted) of child pornography, under the current laws that doesn't mean that they definitely molested someone incapable of consent, and then distributed photos of it (which the subject was also unable to consent to). What I have just described is a criminal and despicable act. BUT:
The original poster's point is that the arbitrary nature of the law doesn't fit the reality. An underage person can consent to have sex on camera with as much (or more) knowledge of the consequences as an adult can. And those who are legally adults can still be taken sexual advantage of. Thus it would seem that the requisite of age is ill-fitting to the purpose of preventing a truly ghastly crime.
Of course, there are corner cases in every legal situation, but if you're convicted of child porn in the US, you lose many rights you would have otherwise retained - not to mention, you are publically registered as a sex offender, leading to harassment and censure from people like you who aren't even willing to understand the circumstances of a charge, who see red at the sight of the words "child pornography" and can't be bothered to think about it any further.
That was a personal insult, just so you know what one looks like from now on.
So many of the anti-child abuse and anti-child porn laws are propelled through the lawmaking process simply because the crime they attempt to prevent is so horrendous. I'm all for erring on the side of caution when a snap decision has to be made, but it is our duty as citizens to ask whether the law we practice on a span of years actually prevents these ghastly crimes, and whether it hurts people who, while perhaps not morally flawless, did not commit the ultimate crime of child molestation.
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
Even if the Police keeps quite to local papers or your neigbours are blind and deaf the Germany Police will conficate your computer inclusive monitor, printer and every CD/DVD they can find - and they probably seach under the foorboards as well. There where times when they even took the electriciy sockets - there where connected to your computer after all.
And when the innocent - after at least 6 Month - get it all back there is no compensation - not even a "Sorry, we where wrong".
Sorry but I have a different opinion on "no harm done".
Crime or not is determined by where you currently are. Many people on holiday have painfully learned that.
Besides: The "age of consent" is not neccesary the right measurement. In Germany it is 16 - however on a profesional basis it's 18.
And if I remember right for "profesional" is 21 in the US (feel free to correct me).
Look up the meaning of "sarcasm" in the dictionary.
The law is fucked [...]
How old is that law? If it's under 18 (or 16, or whatever), it's probably illegal for it to be fucked. If you have any information about that law being fucked, you must report it, citizen.
P.S. - If it turns out that an "underage" law actually wanted to and enjoyed being fucked, then it must be put into therapy until it acknowledges its deep emotional scars and overdoses on anti-depressants.
getting in the way.
I was trying to say you should notmake demons of them because you have no idea as to why or even whether there was a real perversion going on.
It is rape. It is nothing more than that. It is bad andit is wrong. But it doesn't mean you should hate them
it was a lot of people's reaction to the problem I want banned.
There are people here who want child molestors summarily executed, with anyone not agreeing to it branded a child-molester.
However, you cannot define a cut off period, because it varies because of arbitrary boundaries.
If the term cannot be agreed universally on, then there is no consensus other than "it is a crime here, so don't do it.". Treat it as any other violent crime.
But The Point I was making was that when laws are passed to top child porn, the image used to justify is shagging six year olds.
However, the law applies as that same law for shagging a sixteen year old.
Child porn is too overloaded a term and too many people turn their brains off.
Call it rape and hit them for it.
Leave out KP.
I suppose it's to prevent massive employment of kids in a (presumably) hazardous industry, same reason why under-18s can't be forklift operators. That, and we like to pretend our kids aren't already humping their way 'round town by the age of sixteen and a half. That, and the porn industry pays a lotta cash, and cash is power.
But the whole subject is taboo, and I didn't want to broach it. "Lower the consent age of porn!" is the sort of battle-cry one doesn't yell forth into the public sphere.
But now that you've broached it, I can't think of a particularly good reason.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca