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, 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?
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
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
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
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 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.
Problem is this is thought-crime. When what a person is THINKING is what makes something a crime something is wrong. Lets just start with the fact that since there is no way to show the thoughts a person has in there head you have no possible proof of guilt, so it's eigther a non starter or a convienient way to incarcerate someone on a whim.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
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).
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.