Q&A with Paul Allen, Computeractive Magazine
At the end of August 2005, the Government announced a proposal to potentially ban extreme pornographic websites and published a consultation paper inviting views on the proposals.
Under the Government's proposals, it would be an offence to possess images depicting scenes of serious sexual violence and other obscene material. Currently, The Obscene Publications Act (OPA) 1959, makes it an offence only to publish this material.
The consultation invites views on whether there is a need for legislation in this area; the different ways the law could be amended, the categories of material which should be proscribed and the potential penalties for possessing such pornography. Under the new proposals possessing images electronically would be no different from possessing actual photographs, as with current laws on possession of child pornography.
For Q&A 'Spotlight' in our September 2005 e-newsletter, we asked Paul Allen, Deputy Editor of Computeractive Magazine, to contribute to the debate around the proposed ban of this material and the implications for internet consumers.
Should it depend on the context of viewing this material?
The law already enables courts to judge in context, and the Home Office has promised that those who stumble across such material will not face action. That's very important, as even the most conscientious internet user can fall victim to a simple pop-up advertisement.
One of the key questions to be resolved is what is meant by possession. I think any proposed legislation would have to follow the guidelines set down in legislation to deal with images of child abuse online. Computers keep a record of every website visited, and many people don't realise that viewing the images on any website means downloading them so the computer can display them. They are the stored in an area called the cache, and this includes the images found in pop-up advertisements.
Investigations into images of child abuse have to consider the images stored in cache in context, but one of the positive things about PC hardware is that a forensic trail is left, such as the amount of times someone has visited a site, how long was spent there and whether images were saved or simply viewed. The cache can be emptied, even the hard disk itself wiped, but it's actually very difficult to destroy data. Simply deleting an image by placing it in the Windows Recycle Bin won't work. So if someone is suspected of possessing images of violent and extreme pornography, it shouldn't be too difficult to separate those who have innocently stumbled across it from those actively seeking it.
Is it about whether this material is damaging to anyone who might be exposed to it? i.e. broad consumer protection.
The Home Office has stated that the material under discussion is already illegal, and the most extreme and disturbing material is actually quite difficult to find. New legislation that makes possession of electronic copies of images illegal will make the owners of such sites disguise their sites online, in much the same way as paedophile rings trade images through members-only newsgroups.
The problem I foresee is that it won't be possible to write a single definition of what constitutes 'extreme' material. That ultimately will be for courts to decide, and with the wide spectrum of niche pornographic material available online, there will be lots of grey areas. When legislation was introduced to deal with electronic copies of paedophilic images, the definition was relatively simple – minors engaged in abusive or sexual scenarios. The images were therefore treated as evidence of abuse, rather than as pornography. Judging whether certain kinds of adult pornography cross the line would present courts, jurors and particularly police officers with some difficult decisions.
Paul Goggins has said that the proposed legislation is intended to make it easier for police to combat it and reduce demand for it. Both aims are ambitious in the extreme. The vast majority of sites hosting extreme material are based overseas, beyond the jurisdiction of our courts and police. The National Hi-Tech Crime Squad has been forging relationships with overseas agencies to track sites, but the logistics of internal cooperation can be undermined very quickly, as sites can be closed and reopened very quickly.
It's not yet clear whether the law on possession of paedophilic images in digital form has reduced demand for them. In fact, the advent of digital photography and the internet has served to reveal the true scale of child abuse, while providing an easier means of distribution.
Is it deemed harmful only to certain groups? Children for example?
It would be easy to say that violence degrades all who witness it, but proving that a specific type of material provokes a specific response in certain groups is impossible. We are surrounded by actual and dramatic violence, from television news and programming to the cinema. However, the material targeted in the spirit of these proposals is repellent to the vast majority of people.
Should this material be available but with stricter access controls?
The material under discussion is, according to the Government, already illegal, in that it would not be possible to sell it in the UK. The amount of material that sits in the grey area is the problem. This type of material is widely available using a credit or debit card. Attempting to categorise pictures and within new legislation would actually restrict the ability of courts to combat the worst type of material in my opinion. It has to be up to courts to decide what crosses the line of acceptability under the Obscene Publications Act but the Government should find a way to educate consumers about what forms of pornography are illegal. I know from talking to our readers that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what can legally be viewed online. If new restrictions are to be introduced through legislation, then this message must be communicated clearly to home PC users.
Page Created: Tue, September 6th, 2005
Page Modified: Mon, February 12th, 2007
