In message <000301c3f173$cf8922f0$3ab068d5@ntlworld>, Ian Welton
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I had not interpreted Tim's example as vigilantism, but as somebody trying
>to protect themselves and their information.
Roaming around looking for crimes being committed (in this case, people
publishing illegal pictures) is very much regarded as vigilantism.
Irrespective of who the pictures are of. It's quite different to
happening by chance upon a crime in progress, and then involving the
police. And it's not considered right to use an illegal method (cf.
glass on top of a wall) to prevent crime, however much you don't want to
be burgled.
>Which construct would take
>precedence should a case arise would be interesting.
It's the pre-trial publicity which is just as much a killer :-(
>But the broader point you make appears valid, as I understand an offence is
>the 'publication' and visiting the sites normally publishes all the material
>viewed on the hard drive of the PC being used; A pity for the innocent/niave
>visitor to the site.
No. The original child porn offence was distribution (aka publication)
of pictures, or possession with a view distribution. [And also
advertising that you distribute]. Private collections, for example, were
OK.
It was amended a long time ago to include simple possession, but with
"innocence" and "good reason" defences. So a collection on your hard
disk would be unlikely to escape prosecution, but a couple of old
fragments in your browser cache might. Similarly the police & IWF might
be able to argue "good reason", but a vigilante not.
But then the law changed again, mainly as a result of caselaw, so that a
different offence of "making" pictures (which has no defence at all)
could be applied to *any* act of electronic viewing or copying [and not
just the original act of creation].
The lack of prosecutions against IWF etc over the last few years has
been merely because the CPS has deemed it not in the public interest
(rather than because there's a defence or exception).
Hence the recent campaign to get some sort of proper defence for
"making", which has turned out the way I quoted earlier (SOA s46).
Previous drafts of the law would have given defences only to (in effect)
those with a CP-licence; but the magnitude of the task of issuing these
to police and (eg) ISP abuse departments, while avoiding issuing them to
vigilantes, meant it was finally dismissed as unworkable.
As a final twist, there's a Home Office Code of Practice in development
which will be used as the main yardstick against which claims of proof
of being necessary under s46 will be measured. And that won't include
activity by members of the public I'm afraid! (however well-meaning).
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|