Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Now this is Justice

Internet service providers (ISPs) 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.
Justice Minister Chris Ellison said today ISPs and internet content hosts (ICHs) would have strict obligations to report online child pornography to the Australian Federal Police from March 1.
"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.
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 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.
This is on top of the current state and territory penalties.
Senator Ellison said it was hoped that internet providers would work closely with the AFP's online child exploitation team and the Australian High Tech Crime Centre to crack down on child exploitation and paedophile networks.
The AFP last month announced it was also taking part in an international task force to prevent online child abuse.

8 Comments:

Blogger Steve said...

I like this idea to a certain extent. Although it's of primary importance to target the producers of the child porn sites (important enough for there to be an international agreement on it...), that has proven quite impractical. I don't know that it's right, necessarily, to target an ISP because someone might use it to create a crime, but I can't really think of a strong argument against it, probably because I support the idea...
I guess one could argue that it's the same as fining an car manufacturer for making a car that someone uses as a getaway car in a bank robbery.
I don't know. I like the idea, I'm just now sure how equitable it can be. I need a better understanding of the WWW and computers in general.

11:45 PM  
Blogger Jade said...

All I can say is good.. the world has to start somewhere to stop this kinda disgusting crime. Maybe this will work, thanks for poating it Michelle

12:31 AM  
Blogger Green-Eyed Lady(GEL) said...

Child abuse, child porn must be nipped in the bud before more innocent children & teens become victims.

IT will be tricky to do this while still preserving our rights of freedom. I would rather surrender my ISP if that would help even ONE child. Stopping abuse is one of my pet causes.

I do not feel that the internet should be protected for such perpetrators!

5:07 AM  
Blogger gemmak said...

Sounds like a good piece of legislation but the perps. of this stuff need to carry the greatest punishment and the most effort in detection, along with it :o)

7:08 AM  
Blogger riskybiz said...

Fines have to be higher and punishment does as well.

12:46 PM  
Blogger Michelle said...

Steve~ Welcome :) Yes, i agree producers of the stuff need to be targeted, but at the same time ISP's should be used as "filters" if you will, they are able to nip it in the bud.
I am not too sure i agree with your analogy, cars are certainly not innocent kids.

Jade~ YW...stay warm now :)

GEL` Me either!!!

Gem~ Agree 100%!

Risky ~ I second that motion!

4:33 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

Well, the analogy would be a car to the ISP, not the car to the child. The car is the means by which the crime is furthered, not the crime itself. The "child" in the analogy would be the bank.

I'm not suggesting that the crime needs not be controlled; but I would want to see proof, as an individual, that by fining the ISP, people who publish child porn are going to stop. This sounds close to a delegation of policing power; "you'll have to find out who's using your site for porn, so that we don't have to," if you will.

finally, consider this as a possible alternative...
I certainly agree that child porn is a reprehensible act and certainly advocate prophylactic means to control and deter those who would publish child pornography.

7:44 PM  
Blogger Michelle said...

Steve~ good point re policing powers. I'm not too sure we share the same "definition" re prophylactic?

6:12 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home