By Andy McCue, 20 July 2006 01:01
NEWS
Banks and building societies have been given new powers to find out if their customers have been using credit cards to access child abuse images on the internet.
Police will now be able to pass on information on people cautioned or convicted of internet child pornography offences to the card issuers following an amendment to the Data Protection Act. Banks will then be able to cancel the cards and account used to commit the offence as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions of usage.
Before the amendment, data sharing restrictions meant that police were unable to notify card issuers if any of their customers were using their credit cards to access illegal material online.
The change in the law comes after collaboration between payments industry body Apacs, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Home Office and children's charities.
Sandra Quinn, director of corporate communications at Apacs, said in a statement: "No card provider wants to be associated with those who commit these crimes. With this change in the law our members will have the information they need to remove offenders' cards."
Data protection minister Baroness Cathy Ashton said the new powers, which come into force on 26 July, are vital for disrupting and curtailing paedophile activity on the internet.
New figures from the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) show that half of all child abuse content reported to the IWF during the first six months of this year was traced to the US. The number of websites displaying images of child abuse hosted in the UK has actually fallen however - down to just 0.2 per cent of the total worldwide compared to 18 per cent in 1997.
The IWF report has also found a trend for hosting non-commercial images of child abuse on Japanese message boards, as well as growing use of online photo album services posting images and distributing videos online.
The IWF 'hotline' received 5,000 reports of child pornography websites during the first six months of this year - up by 49 per cent on the same period last year.
Illegal content can be reported online via the IWF hotline.
Comments
There are 11 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
A brilliant idea in principle.....
However as someone who has been the victim of creditcard fraud, whereby my card details were fraudulently to register for pornography websites I have great missgivings.
More and more we are getting to a situation where innocence has to be proven rather than guilt.
2. Victim of identity fraud
I support the actions necessary to stop Paedophiles.
But hope that innocent persons who have had their credit cards cloned will be also be protected.
3. Cassandra
Why cancel buyers cards? Why can't credit card companies identify these destination accounts and act to prevent and log payments to those selling child porn? This approach would remove an income stream from the porn supplier by preventing 'paid by credit card' access for anybody - and not only those who have been caught?
Otherwise you exact a punishment only on the buyer and not the purveyor and while the buyer's may be sad, sick and twisted it's the sellers who are not only that but also profiting from this trade.
4. Philip Mackay
This is a very dangerous move. Using the simplistic, emotional argument of protecting children, the credit card companies are being seduced into taking responsibility for "policing" the Internet. Aside from the civil liberties, human rights, and censorship issues, the authority of the Courts is being by-passed. If a person were convicted of child pornography offenses, surely it is a matter for the legal system to order the offender not to have or use credit card facilities. Another danger is that this progresses the argument for credit card companies to be accused of profiting from the proceeds of crime. If the government censors Violent Pornography too, how will the credit card companies deal with this issue? They are being lured into doing the government's and the police's "dirty business" with no benefit to themselves. Interesting - do the directors of the credit card companies really want the personal liability? Perhaps they should consult their lawyers before signing up to this dubious legal minefield.
5. Philip Mackay
Well said, Cassandra. See also my comment on the profiting from the proceeds of crime. If I recall correctly, BT Directors were at imminent risk of being accused of this because of Diallers infecting PCs, having ignored ICSTIS on the subject. Perhaps if the directors of VISA UK etc were charged with criminal offenses for profiting from transacting child pornography payments, this issue would be speedily resolved.
6. anonymous
You are a day Behind.. This was on www.informedconsent YESTERDAY, in Discusssions forum
7. anonymous
Surely it is a better idea to force the credit card companies to be responsible so that if they issue merchant status to a company, they must have checked what the company does? This way, if they are found to be providing support to such sites, then they will have to prove that they did due diligence in supporting this trade or will held legally responsible.
A lot of the dodgy companies would be refused and the number of sites reduced.
8. Innocent Bystander
This idea violates the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", which is one of the foundations of the US legal system and US society in general. Until a court finds a paedophile guilty of a crime there can be no punishment. If the police cause a loss, to the suspect, of a financial tool, then they have punished the suspect and, as mentioned earlier, have circumvented our court system.
Also, there are too many ways this idea can go terribly wrong. Just ask all the government employees that ended up on the "No Fly" list about these types of programs. The government is better at catching innocent bystanders than they are at catching the actual bad guys.
9. Karen Challinor
Yet another sledgehammer and walnut solution designed to keep the innocent scared of identity theft, while doing absolutely nothing to solve the root problem.
As Cassandra said punish the purveyors of this filth by removing their ability to trade with credit cards not the owner of the credit card who might be a paedophile or equally might be some poor sod who had their credit card cloned.
10. David Bowler
Many years ago, before the Internet even existed, a friend of mine worked for American Express. One of his jobs was to check up on businesses that wanted to register to receive payments, to make sure they were legal, especially clubs and hospitality services of various kinds, to make sure they weren't actually houses of ill repute. (It was a hard life, but someone had to do it.) This was standard business policy in those days.
All credit to American Express back then. Has something changed since? Can anybody take credit cards now, no matter how dodgy, no questions asked?
11. anonymous
You've all missed the point....
The banks and CC companies make 2% of whatever these filth-pedlars make. They're not going to throw that away, are they?
Hoping that they will stop giving merchant numbers to these operators is a waste of brain-juice - it just ain't gonna happen.
This move is just a sop to public opinion, to make them look good. In reality, no bank or CC company is going to do anything without a court order, as they leave themselves open to legal action if they do.