DSLRUsers.com

Check this story out from today's News newspapers:

POSTING photos of children on websites could become a crime - even if they appear to be wholesome family snaps.

Not quite as extreme as the quote above suggests, but still yet another reinforcement of the issues we photographers face.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16204822-421,00.html

So what or how can we deal with it?
I would like to show my kid pictures to my family, who're in distance and want to see them over the net?

What happens to all other website with porn, sex, etc...?

It's garbage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Totally agree with you Birddog.

This is getting crazy, why would people (pedi) be interested in happy snaps of kids and family?? They might be interested in kiddies at a swimming pool or beach.

I fail to see how this would ever get off the ground, or be policed.

To me, this is just another "white-balance encryption" scenario. In the end, I'm sure it will turn out to be nothing like it was originally purported to be....and the "big huff" about it will disipate very quickly.

OR, I could be wrong and we'll have the ped-police watching the forum for dubious activity....

Aussie Dave wrote:OR, I could be wrong and we'll have the ped-police watching the forum for dubious activity....

Where are you?

This is getting ridiculous. I'm already stretching to make the link between posession of child photos and pedophilia.

This whole issue most probably brought on by the advent of cameras incorporated into telecommunications devices, and they're banning the wrong thing if they want to address the issue.

cf. Amber alert system to be introduced in NSW as out of the 20 attempted child abductions in the past 2 months 10 have involved strangers in cars approaching children. Then why not ban private motor vehicles? Problem solved....

shutterbug wrote:

Aussie Dave wrote:OR, I could be wrong and we'll have the ped-police watching the forum for dubious activity....

Where are you?

sorry Shutterbug...what do you mean "Where am I ?"

what about all those Pro portrait photographers who have sample of children portrait on their website?

what about family portraits with mum, dad and child.

what complete rubbish!

this is the same reaction to the terrorist situation....

Like far too many reports in the media, the linked article is overstating and sensationalising the issue.

I think that careful consideration of appropriate measures to protect children is sensible. An overhyped report about some measures which are being suggested by who knows who has nothing to do with the final outcome.

The bad things are we're the mules and we paid so much taxes for some f####king idiots, who 's just sitting there with nothing to do and like create more jobs for them or get sacked.

Same as water restriction, one way, asking us to save water, employed Water Restriction Enforcement Officer, new cars for them, on the other way Sydney Water wasted million litres of water thru leaking and burst all over the city. What's the point?

What can the bad guys doing with my family photos on the net? will or can they stripped our clothes off

seems they are targeting improper use mostly. If you have the rights and permissions to use a photo it shouldn't be an issue...ever. Interesting to see where it goes, most likely will fizzle. These things usually do when they infringe on peoples rights.

And

Wow talk about a knee-jerk reaction from the politicians yet again!

I have a friend who has a dedicated website with photos of his three children for the purpose of sharing with friends and families around the globe. No doubt they're there for that purpose but I'll let him know anyway just in case. Thanks for the link!

This is obsurd! As many members have already said that the possibility of this getting off the ground is miniscule, how the would police it is a good question. What about pro photogs with online galleries of their portraiture work? There is FAR more legitimacy in this than unwanted stuff. Insane!

OK... Stop right there...
1. Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper...
2. Don't invent further stuff yourself...

Here is the actual discussion paper (all 60 pages of it)

As stated, they are looking for public input on the matter... Personally I think a few of us should read the paper and combine our minds to give them some representative feedback on the proposal...

They soon have new recruitment of Law Enforcement Officers to cover this saga.
Anyone who wants to change to the new career or get a job, be ready! they want you

leek wrote: Here is the actual discussion paper (all 60 pages of it)

As stated, they are looking for public input on the matter... Personally I think a few of us should read the paper and combine our minds to give them some representative feedback on the proposal...

Why should they have the proposal for? don't they have any more job to do better than this?
Such a waste of time and resources.

Aussie Dave wrote:

shutterbug wrote:

Aussie Dave wrote:OR, I could be wrong and we'll have the ped-police watching the forum for dubious activity....

Where are you?

sorry Shutterbug...what do you mean "Where am I ?"

I mean where is the pedi police...show up

I said to some people at the SAT AW meet, this is the new reality.

The implementation of this child porn laws is far removed from media reports. Nor as stringent though most ISP of any size will be required to in effect perform take down notices, have direct access to ASIO and Fed.

ISP are now legally bound to report any "paedophile like activity, website inc picture or words" to ASIO and Fed.

Talking of new reality, in another post I said my friend burnt her dinner -> alarm went off, Median Grand was evacuated -> fire brigade was called.

Unknown to us, as we were just coming back to the Medina when we saw all this happen. While down stairs, you can hear the whispers and the furtive glances at the Muslim family that was staying in the apartment as well.

The whispers.... is it a bomb threat? Before the 911 madness I think people would of more likely to say "who left the oven on or who burnt the toast"

It is sad but I try to look only at the bright side of life

what emoticon should I use

Since I am ranting on on

Another thing I was at Darling Harbour on Sunday and I was going to take some photos but I had second thoughts .......................

WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOO

This is just another ridiculous scare tactic that will never get off the ground.

I have three teenage kids and I know that there are hundreds of bona-fide kids websites that have kids articles and photos of kids....are they going to ban these? And what about news articles and magazines online which post pictures of kids who are T.V or movie stars etc.

What is to stop pedophiles scanning hard copy photos and posting them on the web? Are they going to ban scanners too?

Smac

You are absolutely right Stuart.

Quite apart from the distorted reporting issue I mentioned above, in the face of a seemingly insoluble problem, governments tend to do anything to appear that they are doing something.

Even if what they are doing is futile and pointless, they can at least avoid accusations of having done nothing. Another triumph of style over substance.

(Mind you, I have no idea how to address the larger issue of pedophiles.)

It is tragic that legitimate activities are impacted just for the sake of appearances.

Greg B wrote:Quite apart from the distorted reporting issue I mentioned above, in the face of a seemingly insoluble problem, governments tend to do anything to appear that they are doing something.

Too often they confuse busyness with taking action. The two are quite different, but most public servants aren't smart enough to discern the difference.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the general public is no smarter than then public (so-called) service, and they, too, cannot discern the difference.

The worrying thing about newspaper reports such is this (sensationalised or not) is that the general populous starts to believe the photographer to be the bad guy.
How many of us either:
- wonder if people are looking at us strangely while we take our photo's because we 'could be terrorists/peds/other'?
- have been confronted by someone claiming we are 'not permitted to take our photo's'
- have heard comments to the effect from passers by as we have taken those photo's

It appears they are calling for submissions. Perhaps some of us should get together in the not too distant future and prepare such a submission.

Deadline seems to be October - I'd be willing to co-ordinate something in September if there's enough interest.

Greg B wrote:
Even if what they are doing is futile and pointless, they can at least avoid accusations of having done nothing. Another triumph of style over substance.

(Mind you, I have no idea how to address the larger issue of pedophiles.)

I agree this new law is futile................though every ISP I talked to and discussed this topic with are in the process of implementing something or hiring. Most webpage checking are done manually and URL reports from general customer base are looked into and if deemed unacceptable we pass all details to Feds.

All the team members belive this is fultile as if it is done by organised group with tech savvy person it won't show up. Nor will an ISP have authority to do break encrytion (if we can) or do anything about it.

The rule here is that if it is accpetable like a family homepage with kids then it is Ok. If it is explicit or strange and I have seen some it is not on, and yes we have taken some sites down remember three months ago it was big news.

Furthermore I talked to the ped police in action and I do not want to cross them...

One of the photogs that I assist was recently photographing a "neighbourhood" for a local council and the opportunity came up to get some great 'friendly neighbourhood kids' shots. The 3 boys were fixing a punctured bike tire so he approached and asked if their parents were around to get permission. Unfortunately they weren't home and after explaining what he was doing the kids volunteered to be photographed. The photographer thought he'd simply take a couple of shots and seek parental permission afterwards (he's been in the industry for 30+ years) but then along came Mrs Dogood! Before he had a chance to explain himself she had him pegged as a paedophile and was on to the police..armed with his business card which he voluntarily gave her!

Anyway, he thought it had all blown over until a couple of weeks later when he was paid a visit by 2 investigating officers who were very quickly relieved to see the studio set up and extensive portfolio of commercial work!

The thing that really gets me is that he was driving a company branded vehicle and shooting with a Mamiya 645 and P25 back..i don't expect the public to know about camera's but I can't imagine a paedophile would set up a big camera/tripod and reflector boards to capture his images!!

My 2 cents..

oh, and by the way, i'm not complaining about the cop's part in the process - it's good to know they do investigate these things but it did take them over two weeks to get in touch so it makes you wonder how many of these "bogus" accusations they must have to investigate.

sheepie wrote:The worrying thing about newspaper reports such is this (sensationalised or not) is that the general populous starts to believe the photographer to be the bad guy.
How many of us either:
- wonder if people are looking at us strangely while we take our photo's because we 'could be terrorists/peds/other'?
- have been confronted by someone claiming we are 'not permitted to take our photo's'
- have heard comments to the effect from passers by as we have taken those photo's

It appears they are calling for submissions. Perhaps some of us should get together in the not too distant future and prepare such a submission.

Deadline seems to be October - I'd be willing to co-ordinate something in September if there's enough interest.

I agree with you Sheepie... the main problem is the newspaper report and the fact that it's the only thing that the mainsteam population actually sees.

If you read the discussion paper itself, it actually raises and discusses some quite interesting issues... No firm proposals are made, but a range of options are discussed. The submissions that they receive will influence which of these options is progressed.

They seem to have considered many different angles, and done their homework internationally, but I would be more than willing to contribute to a submission.

leek, sheepie,
I don't quite understand why they should raise these complex matters?
Will this hurt? YES? will this lift up the ground? NO
We all pay for these works.
It's again a big garbage dump!

Birddog114 wrote:leek, sheepie,
I don't quite understand why they should raise these complex matters?
Will this hurt? YES? will this lift up the ground? NO
We all pay for these works.
It's again a big garbage dump!

Birdy, I think if you read it, you'll find it's not as bad as you're making out. As far as I can see no-one would be hurt unless they truly deserve it...

We pay for Government and I think that it's quite reasonable for them to monitor public concerns and legislate accordingly. I'd expect them to do this in many different areas.

If we don't have our say, then all they will listen to is the sensationalism dished up by the newspapers.

Does the Govt. don't have anything else to do instead of this ones?
Or they will have to go cos no jobs for them, and they create more jobs for themself, but not in the other critical areas, what and how can you express from your feeling they do something here to protect us? or just want to "gung ho" and let we live with it?

Have the Mayor & GM from your Council answer and solve the problems of taking photos of your children at the swimming pool.

My first concerning is how can the Govt. help us, the taxpayer can purchase the lowest price for petrol in the next couple days/ weeks?

How do they use our taxes money into the right spot? They didn't in the past.

Yes, I agreed some bad guys (pedo) did some bad things about the kids, but with our family photo album on the web, are they going to hijack and strip it off for their uses, I still don't see the point!

This doesn't affect - repeat - doesn't affect family photo albums on the web...

leek wrote:This doesn't affect - repeat - doesn't affect family photo albums on the web...

I can confirm this as I sit a floor up from the group that checks each page that is flagged automatically by software or URL sent to us by customers, each is checked manually by a human before we pass it on to the feds.

99.99999997% of the time we just send an email to the person reporting that after inspecting the site we are of the opinion that the site is legit and will not take any further action though they can contact the relevent authorities if they wish.

The other times .......... some sick people are around

Gov is not paying for this YOU the paying public are?

Some one asked me the other day how I went getting individual surfers' permission to photograph them! "Sure mate, I just swim out there among the sharks with pen and paper and get them to sign...not!"

What's the world coming to? I have four beautiful kids, grown up almost, and if anyone tried to hurt them I would kill. I have helped investigate pedo's and to put them behind bars, these sick people need to be shot, and shot quickly.

However, I hope and presume this proposal will come to nought. We do live in a free society, don't we...?

As an aside, it was reported this morning on 2CS radio that a Coffs Hbr man was charged with unlawfully owning an airgun after a police search warrant was exercised on a property yesterday...fair dinkum, while the streets run amok with drug pushers and so on...political correctness gone berserck.


Max

ozimax wrote:However, I hope and presume this proposal will come to nought. We do live in a free society, don't we...?

Which of the proposals don't you agree with Max?

John,

It's a fair point you make. I read some of the 60 pages, but not all (I'm still at work)! I disregarded the paper story, I don't believe what most journos write. Your point about reading the whole lot before commenting is valid.

Kids have to be protected, ped/porn/whatever web sites and individuals should be closed/prosecuted/shot etc etc but that's easier said than done. I think only a tiny percentage are caught.

On the restriction side, where do you stop and start? Do you ban all child photography? Of course not. The paper mentioned specifically sports photography - several times I have been down to photograph my little neices or nephews at soccer, which is great fun. How do you police this?

I think the only way to conclusively get rid of child porn etc is ban all cameras and phones, like preventing drink driving by banning all cars, and preventing gun crime by banning all firearms - everything then goes underground and only the crooks have access to the aforementioned items, as in the case of firearms.

I just want to be able to photograph my little rels and grandchildren (when they come) in freedom.

I hope this makes sense...I better get back to work

Max

I was just kidding... and agree with everything you say...

Section 6 of the paper is the relevant part... That shows the range of legislation they are considering... That's the bit we should respond to if any...