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.
"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.
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?
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*
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!
"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."
I'll break it down for you:
If anybody can't be bothered to investigate a report of suspected kiddie porn on their own server, then they should not be running an ISP.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
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
Why do you say that? We've had a similar law in the USA for years, and it hasn't spelled the death of the ISP industry.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
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.
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.
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.
No, just a typical Slashdotter, more interested in shooting from the lip than in bothering to RTFA. As several other posters have already pointed out, this law requires ISPs that learn about kiddy porn on their systems, or viewed through their systems, to report the incident to the police in a reasonably timely manner, and nothing else. It doesn't make them responsible for content, it doesn't force them to censor anything, it doesn't force them to do anything at all except report kiddy porn to the police. Now please, get off your soapbox, back on your meds and next time, RTFA before showing everybody what a fool you are.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, the Australian Federal Police is the equivalent of their FBI. ASIO is like the 'theory' component of the CIA, ASIS is like the 'practical' component.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
ASIO was purely an intelligence gathering organisation with no enforcement powers that worked with a variety of law enforcement agencies (Australian Federal Police, Customs, State Police etc). Recently it was decided to suddenly turn them into a law enforcement organisation - after a decision to be seen to do something about terrorism and possibly after the minister of the time saw a James Bond film. The Australian Federal Police is a fairly small organisation with limited juristiction so doesn't resemble the FBI either. It was actually formed some decades ago when someone threw an egg at the Prime Minister of the time in my home town, and the state police refused to do anything about it. It mostly deals with customs or immigration offences.
Someone that actualy read the story
Access Point Live Mapping Access Points with Google
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.
# 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
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).
...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
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.
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.
Please get a grip on yourself. You've got way too much anger and not anywhere near enough sense. If you think you're acting rationally, consider a few cases and tell me what that'd get you.
Firstly, this discussion pertains to notifications of the possibility of child porn. If I called your ISP and told them you were hosting CP, and you lived in Australia, they'd have to pass that information on to the police. Whether you actually did it is a matter for the police to decide, so toss yourself on the fire if you feel that an accusation (which is what the article is about, by the way) is enough.
Next, take note that if you choose to execute such punishment only on convicted offenders, that there are a number of cases where folks have been convicted (and in one case, sentenced to death) for sexually abusing a child, only to have later evidence exonerate them. If you performed such hellacious torture on someone who turns out to have been innocent, you can't simply let them out of their grave, eh?
Lastly, if you only choose to torture those who are unquestionably guilty, then there's a fifteen year old girl who was convicted of posession and distribution of child porn for taking videos of herself masturbating and giving them to a classmate. There's no question of her guilt, and she's now a registered sex offender, so you'll have to consider lighting her up until she begs you to let her die.
Lastly, you're kidding yourself if you think that fear of getting caught will reduce the number of child sex abuse cases. Sexual urges tend to override virtually everything else, including fear of retribution.
In short, shut up. You sound like a pissed-off ten year old. It's obvious that you view the world through a haze of red, and frankly I'd consider you more dangerous than most because you have actually attached your morality to this badly damaged view of justice, so you'd likely be uncorrectable. I feel for your "precious angel", who may never learn to handle anger properly with you around.
Virg
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.
Certainly not me. Under current laws I'd probably be charged with viewing child pornography.
Much better to just delete the stuff and forget about it, than to attempt to get the actual source busted. The law is fucked and it encourages people not to report.