Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian ISPs Required To Report Child Porn

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the law-and-ornament dept.

Censorship 655

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?"

cancel ×

655 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

With vaporware (5, Funny)

surefooted1 (838360) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752963)

How on earth are the ISPs (and web hosts -- like my own very small-time and humble company) supposed to enforce this?
With vaporware!

Here's what we should all be asking... (0, Offtopic)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752972)

What does Roland Piquepaille think about this?

Re:With vaporware (2, Interesting)

The0retical (307064) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753001)

I remember something vaguely about the ISP that I work with having to keep a list of know kiddie porn sites on a list and block those sites through some sort of firewall or IP filtering system on our network. I think this was some sort of mandate in the state I worked in. I am not sure if it was actually ever enforced or not but this may be something similar.

Re:With vaporware (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753007)

nope - just set up an email address 'reportchildport@myisp.net' that forwards to 'postmaster@police.gov' and put it on your front page

Re:With vaporware (5, Insightful)

jgardner100 (559892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753022)

Stop the world, I want to get off as there is no sign of intelligent life here.

As an asside, they are planning to ban parents from taking photos during school swimming carnivals soon here in Australia for fear of pedophiles taking photographs.

People are trying to look like they are doing something even though their proposed "solutions" make no sense.

FP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11752964)

Yeah, so I"ve got no clue.

You can't? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11752966)

Hmm...

it's simple (5, Funny)

Fo0eY (546716) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752968)

just enable the evil bit of course

New jobs? (5, Funny)

wannabgeek (323414) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752970)

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?!?!

Re:New jobs? (1)

Rii (777315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753042)

For a job like that? Santa Claus.

Re:New jobs? (5, Interesting)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753117)

Does it mean they're going to hire people to go through all porn and judge which is legal?!

I used to work for a free adult host. One thing I did was write a system to monitor the bandwidth usage of individual users and display the results, sorted high to low by megabits, everyday. The regular users were obvious, you knew who they were and what their sites consisted of. But pretty much everyday, 1 or 2 sites would jump to the top of the list. These sites were always newly created and they were always child porn. I would then go and delete the accounts and the files. The FBI, US Customs and local PD all told me it was illegal to delete, move or even shut down child porn sites. We had to rotate our logs 3 times a day, so by the time the authorities came by (on their own investigations) the evidence was always long gone. We hated the CP for what it was, but it also consumed huge amounts of bandwidth so we couldn't afford to keep it around.

This shit popped up every single day of the week. I used to roam the CP bbses which advertised the new sites and post stuff like "THE FBI IS MONITORING (the company I worked for.)" It would freak the shit out them.

Heh, I still have an old file cabinet from that company that is labeled "The PedoFile."

PLEASE UPDATE THE STORY (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753127)

No, this law only requires that ISPs forward customers' reports about child porn to the authorities. The Slashdot summary is totally incorrect.

How do they decide? (4, Interesting)

JohnnyKlunk (568221) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752971)

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.

Re:How do they decide? (5, Informative)

redphive (175243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753009)

I work for an ISP and we recently had a friendly informational meeting with our local police. It was pretty much a get to know you kind of thing.

In talking, the topic of child porn came up as it would be something we cooperate should that type of investigation land on our networks door-step. The Officer said that they could have found 20 images of a 'child' in various stages of undress, and the last one was an image of a fully disclothed child, but without a clear shot of their face. Out of all of that they would have no way (with out obvious birthmarks and the like) to classify any of the images as child pornography because there was no definitive way to link the final image to the identity of the child.

Pretty depressing stuff, but that is the reality the poice face when trying to prosecute this kind of thing.

Imagine the steps ISPs would have to do to come to the same conclusions.

Re:How do they decide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753109)

Imagine the steps ISPs would have to do to come to the same conclusions.

Imagine the lawsuits ISPs could face if they get the decision wrong -- either way. Ruining someone's life with a false accusation, or contributing to the ruination of someone's life by letting something go that should have the whistle blown on it; angry lawyers aren't really going to respect any disclaimers in cases like that.

Re:How do they decide? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753065)

How do you decide what's child porn and what's good old regular normal porn?

Or even what is just ordinary human behaviour.

Remember that immigrant in America who was charged with child pornography for taking pictures of herself breast feeding?

With 10 years in jail as the penalty, on top of other penalties that may be imposed by individual states, you'd have to be bloody certain you didn't upset any religious zealot in the goverment bureaucracy. No nudism for you, buddy!

PLEASE UPDATE THE STORY (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753147)

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.

Otherwise known as the Perpetual $55,000 ISP Tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11752974)

What a way to make money!

Simple solution (5, Funny)

Jesus 2.0 (701858) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752975)

"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

Exactly. (4, Insightful)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752994)

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.

Re:Simple solution (1)

mtrisk (770081) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753053)

Very true. Don't they have common carrier status (and therefore are not responsible for the content on their servers) or is that a U.S. thing? If so, I'm sure us Americans can petition some corporation to lobby Congress into making a treaty with the Australian government. I hear the "Liberal" government is America's crack whore. We ask for rimshot, they bend over. ;]

Re:Simple solution (1, Troll)

G-funk (22712) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753097)

Close. Bush asks for $FOO, Australia bends over. If we don't, bush slaps tarifs on our farming exports (while subsidising US farmers), and our economy keels over. Of course everybody not in power likes to complain about the liberals being "america's lackeys", and to act like they'd be in a position to do something different if they were in power.

Re:Simple solution (4, Interesting)

zcat_NZ (267672) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753150)

Yep, those sanctions are really killing us here. Suck it up and grow a backbone.

Re:Simple solution (1)

Hecatonchires (231908) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753122)

And then set up a cron job to your fax that runs it every hour or so

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753134)

You might also have to include a sentence to the effect of "We do not know where or what this material might be or even if it exists but, if it does, our ISP could be used to access it."

This is really the only possible action one could take: identifying specific cases would constitute probable cause, saying nothing would be an obvious violation and saying "Nope, can't get there from here" would be an equally obviously false statement.

I guess somebody's nephew needs a job...

Periodic Hysterias (5, Insightful)

Martin Taylor (861858) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752979)

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.

Re:Periodic Hysterias (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753113)

"Civil liberties mean nothing when you can get a good hysteria going."

What civil liberties are being violated here?

Re:Periodic Hysterias (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753172)

It is absolutely histeria. Child porn is a crime and should absolutely be reported if found, because you might help an actual person who is still a child get out of a bad situation. However, under the right circumstances the law might be taken too far.

I have baby pictures of myself. In one, I'm in the tub, about age 7. Can I be convicted of a crime by having this photo? What if I put it in my personal web page? You can't see much in the photo, because 2/3 of me is under water and suds, but it is clear that it is a picture of a naked child.

Child porn isn't as bad, not even 1/10th as bad as any well-traveled highway during heavy traffic. Entire families are ripped apart because roads enable criminals to use deadly weapons to instantly crush people on a whim. Now, as soon as the transportation department is liable for the actions of any speeder, improper lane changer, drunk driver, and cell-phone talker, then maybe you can start to make a case against ISPs for their traffic.

tell em to piss off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11752980)

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

Maybe we can put the Asio racks to good use (1)

meridian (16189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752981)

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

Simple! (3, Funny)

Digital Dharma (673185) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752983)

Just bundle Weathercast with the ISP software and let Windows do the rest!

simple solution for an ISP... (5, Funny)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752985)

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.

Re:simple solution for an ISP... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753016)

Hello??? ASCII art????

RTFA (5, Informative)

ToshiroOC (805867) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752987)

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.

Re:RTFA (5, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753049)

"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."

Correct. Just as has been the case for several years in the USA.

When this happened to me -- somebody let me know that a member of my site was using their storage to host child porn, I very quickly called the FBI, who in turn sent me to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [missingkids.com] .

For me, there was no gray area. I didn't think for one minute of my rights being violated. I didn't think for one minute about losing my Slashdot cred (which, by definition, I must not have in the first place) by doing so. In short, the phrase "your rights online" did not even occur to me; if any phrase came to mind, it was "you shore got a purdy mouth" or some similar one that I envisioned the scumbag hearing sometime soon.

In short, I think that if an ISP operator is upset by a law that requires them to report child pornography to the authorities once they're made aware of it, then perhaps they shouldn't be running an ISP.

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753167)

by way of comparison you are not required by law to report sites which advocate murder, detail murders planned or already committed, or if you know anyone who is planning a murder. there are no penalties for keeping your mouth shut if you're not directly involved. even if someone dies as a result.

and in many cases the penalty for mere posession of child pornography is longer and harsher (9 to 11 years) than that of say, armed robbery (typically 5 years or less).

a one time convicted child porn downloader may get a long prison sentence and then a lifefime of "monitoring" (basically, supervised probation). a repeat violent criminal (armed robbery, assault, even murder) would typically get a prison sentence (often very short), a few years probation at most, then that's it.

a convicted child porn downloader is required to register with the local police, and they inform the local population. that a dangerous pedophile lives amongst them. a nice publically announced and endorsed target for vigilantes (and that is the point i guess, to encourage vigalantism). basically shouting it from the rooftops. ignoring the fact that the vast majority of child abuse is by parents or close relatives.

a convicted murderer is not required to register with anyone, and there is no requirement to inform the population that a violent criminal lives near them.

most strange, these so-called 'morality' laws.

Re:RTFA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753175)

My hat is off to you and I probably would have done exactly the same thing in your situation. Where you lost your Slashdot cred is when you suggested that the basic right to privacy is equivalent to paedophilia. You got it back by failing to RTFA.

I did, however, so I will point out that the article did not say "is being used". It said "can be used".

Hype (5, Informative)

ChimpyMonkey (748966) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752990)

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

Where are mod points when you need them (0, Offtopic)

Goosey (654680) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753033)

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.

Re:Hype (4, Informative)

grcumb (781340) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753106)

This is not out of step with other nations, either. In Canada, the law states that anyone finding child pornography is legally obligated to report it. There are heavy penalties for failing to do so.

Child Abuse (3, Funny)

Haxx (314221) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752991)

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?

Re:Child Abuse (1)

Maul (83993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753060)

Joking aside, it wouldn't surprise me.

Re:Child Abuse (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753100)

Does this mean you could do 10 years for googling effective ways to spank a child?

Sorry, that's patented:
Method of disciplining a child by sharp, repeated slaps to the posterior.

Of course, Amazon already has a one-slap patent, while Microsoft has one that allows strangers to appear off the street and randomly spank your child whenever they feel like it, though they're working on a fix for that.

Yes, actually (4, Informative)

beldraen (94534) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753116)

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.

Simple... (1)

ajaf (672235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752993)

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.

Why not take it one step further? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11752995)

If _looking_ at child porn is illegal (presumably because it gives the viewer an uncontrollable urge to go out and rape little children), why not make it illegal to look at dead people, too (because, as you know, looking at dead bodies turns you into a murderer)? Then we can also start fining TV stations if they insist on showing images from battlefields. Maybe that way, if we hide child porn and war footage, no children will ever be abused and no-one will die in wars. And maybe we can also make it illegal for people to say "AIDS" or "cancer" on TV. After all, hiding problems is the best way to solve them, right?

Re:Why not take it one step further? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753028)

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.

Re:Why not take it one step further? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753038)

How'd you know?!
You aren't fearless leader in disguise, are you???

Re:Why not take it one step further? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753111)

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.

Re:Why not take it one step further? (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753141)

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.

enforcement? (2, Informative)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752996)

From the article: "... and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time."

Slightly misleading (4, Informative)

DaCool42 (525559) | more than 9 years ago | (#11752997)

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.

I believe the real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753035)

What does Roland Piquepaille think about this? People want to know.

Re:Slightly misleading (1)

MrLint (519792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753048)

Why would someone report it to their ISP? the only reason woudl be that they cant seem to figure out where the kiddie porn they are looking at is coming from. So the so the next thing is why not just make it a crime for any web server to not report the porn to the govt themselves in a reasonable fashion. why make an ISP do the work for them?

WELCO METOT HELAM ENES SFIL TER (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11752999)

Post Aborted!

Reason: Please go to a better site. This one is too lame for your coolness.

Your dick is too big to be posting on Slashdot. A cute guy like you should be out with women, fornicating and carousing. Posting on Slashdot is...

LAME

Age of Porno-Consent? (2, Interesting)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753000)

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

Re:Age of Porno-Consent? (1)

Martin Taylor (861858) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753030)

Maybe the 16+ers are all in the NN section... Got an l/p for a brother?

Re:Age of Porno-Consent? (1)

ChimpyMonkey (748966) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753036)

Looks like it is hosted with rackspace.com in the US, not Australia.

jason@gribbit:~$ host www.hush-hush.com
www.hush-hush.com is an alias for hush-hush.com.
hush-hush.com has address 207.97.203.3
jason@gribbit:~$ whois 207.97.203.3
Rackspace.com RSPC-NET-4 (NET-207-97-192-0-1)
207.97.192.0 - 207.97.255.255
Billarga Pty Ltd RSPC-53042-1096578643 (NET-207-97-203-0-1)
207.97.203.0 - 207.97.203.15

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-02-22 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
jason@gribbit:~$

Re:Age of Porno-Consent? (2, Interesting)

Joel from Sydney (828208) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753041)

The age of consent for male-female sex is 16, for male-male sex it's either 16 or 18, depending on which state you're in. According to the law, there is no age of consent for female-female sex, go figure.

I'm not aware of any specifics relating to age of consent for photography, though I've no doubt they exist. I would imagine it depends on which state or territory you're in.

Re:Age of Porno-Consent? (2, Funny)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753171)

age of consent != age for pronography

Re:Age of Porno-Consent? (1)

O-SUSHi (820452) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753137)

16? I'm 16. I live in Australia. I wonder if they'll let me be one of their movies -- oh wait, they won't, because I'm posting here.

(Assuming it's not gay porn, I didn't actually check the porn site - and no I'm not lying)

Read the law first *then* make comments (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753002)

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.

Re:Read the law first *then* make comments (1)

ajaf (672235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753020)

For gods sake read the new ruling first. Then make comments."

Huh? This's Slashdot dude.

In Soviet Russia. (-1, Offtopic)

xenostar (746407) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753011)

In Soviet Russia, the kiddie porn fines you!

Re:In Soviet Russia. (-1, Offtopic)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753029)

um, yeah, let's make a "soviet russia" joke about children being abused. especially since a lot of it seems to come from russia anyway.

Re:In Soviet Russia. (-1, Flamebait)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753047)

Fuck you. There are entirely unrelated reasoons why he should be belittled: He didnt even phrase it correctly.

Re:In Soviet Russia. (-1)

xenostar (746407) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753072)

Haha, did you actually expect a tasteful Soviet Russia joke?

Re:In Soviet Russia. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753142)

Fuck you. In the soviet Union the kiddies abuse YOU!

Re:In Soviet Russia. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753092)

Feel like burning some karma today I see. I cannot remember the last time a soviet russia comment was not modded down. I guess I haven't been here long enough.

it's unclear to me what this actually means (3, Interesting)

tiglari (834033) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753014)

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."

Solution! (2, Interesting)

dasunt (249686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753018)

  1. Find the ISP of every lawmaker who voted on this bill.
  2. Inform said ISPs of this bill.
  3. Point out that it is impossible to monitor SSL for child porn.
  4. Point out that VPN solutions also tend to be encrypted, making it impossible to monitor for child porn.
  5. Watch lawmakers revise bill after their net connections become useless ("I'm sorry sir that your internet banking and investing sites don't work, but we had to disable that functionality because of a bill you passed.")
  6. ??? & Profit!^W^W^W Watch bill be fixed.

Obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753019)

Austrailian reglators just want an excuse to look for child porn.

I think it's good (1)

NuKeLiTe (418) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753031)

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.

"... anyone who has ..." (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753074)

Put your hat back on.
I eat childrens.

Re:I think it's good (1)

Martin Taylor (861858) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753077)

Yes, you should support any effort to stop child abuse. If we take away your children from you, and put them in some kind of sealed and monitored Monroe box until they are of legal age, then we can guarantee that those degrading acitivities you are so worried about, will be completely stamped out! Think of the children? That's all they'll be able to do! Until we can find a way to stamp that perversion out as well.

From TFA (1)

Barto (467793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753034)

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.

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753059)

why not just email/call the police and report the website?

Why the isp's? (1)

cubase_dag (827101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753044)

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.

Re:Why the isp's? (4, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753080)

"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:

  • 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.
  • So you tell the authorities.
  • Then you go back to reading Slashdot.

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.

Re:Why the isp's? (0)

Hecatonchires (231908) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753143)

But it isn't your job to determine if its child porn, its your job to report it, so when u do report it, they arrest you too for looking at it.

Re:Why the isp's? (1)

kberg108 (175765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753161)

right... and maybe the police will think your assaulting them when them come to get you and they'll beat you with their night sticks and when they are done with that they'll plant some crack on you and throw you in the "big house" to be a bubbas cell mate. gimme a break

Re:Why the isp's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753183)

It's called "making a judgement". Techology should be able to do that. That's what computers should do. But, um, well hell

freenet (0)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753051)

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.

Re:freenet (2, Interesting)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753094)

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.

Re:freenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753131)

Oops. Was I supposed to actually read the article? Just give me a jump to conclusions mat. The wording of the summary seems to indicate that the ISP would be responsible for any content that travels across their servers. That would have been an interesting law. This one barely qualifies as news. So they have to pass on the information to the police? :yawn:.

"Your rights online"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753052)

Our right to look at kiddie porn. AM I RITE?

More Childish Hysteria (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753062)

Sigh, yet another example of the childish hysteria seen in all too many of Slashdot's front-page postings. Read the story, and you'll see this (italics mine):
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.
ISPs are simply coming under similar required reporting requirements as MDs, counselors, child care staff, pastors, priests, school teachers, etc. are under in innumerable states and countries. If they have "reasonable grounds to believe" that their site is being used to pass child porn, they must report it. They can't say, "it's none of my business." The law makes it their business.

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

I fail to see (3, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753063)

why the police are *not* being fined thousands for failing to prevent child porn in the first place. Or automakers, computer and camera manufacturers, hotels, schools, parents, politicians, and Ayers Rock for not child porn proofing their products, and not doing all they can to prevent it.

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!

omfg, muh rights are being violated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753070)

Slashdotter's rights to molest little children and send picx to each other!

Re:omfg, muh rights are being violated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11753153)

A good point. Why is this filed under "your rights online"? LOL. Well actually I guess I don't agree with child porn laws. Making it should be illegal but viewing it should not be. Consistent with murder laws etc...

The next day... (1)

JoeShmoe (90109) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753078)

Australian Police: "Dammit, why do people keep sending us links to Google Images?"

- JoeShmoe
.

Like the NRA says (0)

nate nice (672391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753086)

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!

A new low... (4, Interesting)

dantheman82 (765429) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753090)

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?!?

Huh? (2, Informative)

pbjones (315127) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753103)

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.

Easy path to deterrence (1)

shanen (462549) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753129)

Not sure about the exact wording of the law, but I think it should be easy enough to deal with.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Ask your customers to help you and encourage them to report any violations they see.
  4. 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.

they want it bad, they get it bad (1)

sPaKr (116314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753148)

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!

Re:they want it bad, they get it bad (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753176)

I don't get your point. How hard can it be to investigate reports of kiddie porn? You already have an abuse desk, right? It's simple: if your abuse desk gets a report of kiddie porn on your host, just take a few seconds to look at the site in question, and if it's kiddie porn, take action.

Really, this is basic stuff that you should be doing anyway. I don't see how an ISP operator could see any moral value in providing a haven for kiddie porn collectors, let alone justify mailbombing law enforcement as a means to that end.

Sigh... (1)

Complete Bastard (201344) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753159)

Yes, this is what happens for those of us lucky enough to live in a country governed by Luddites...

Ridiculous. (1, Insightful)

boingyzain (739759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753170)

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.

As one who lives in Denver area, I say good. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 9 years ago | (#11753177)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>