to download the document in PDF format - Child Centre: Expert ...

high-profile case in the US where an employee at a photo developing shop was fired forviolating the store’s customer confidentiality policy in reporting photos depicting childabuse. 323Photo processing shops can assist in intervention, where films containing evidence ofCSEC are submitted for development. In contrast with the case cited above, there havebeen some cases successfully brought to trial as a result of reporting by photo processors.In the US, a scoutmaster was jailed for possessing photos of a nude 9-year-old. The policediscovered the pictures when a clerk from a photo-processing lab alerted authorities. 324 Anumber of photo processing shops have promulgated mandatory measures for reportingof any questionable photographic images developed in the shop. For example, a largephoto processing company, Black’s Photography, in Canada has a policy requiring policereporting where employees find questionable material in clients’ films. Employees canrefuse to print images if their contents are not in compliance with the law or if the imagesare inappropriate. All employees are trained by these guidelines and may refer back tothem at any time while on the job through an electronic resource. A clerk who findsquestionable material, under their discretion, must report it to the management teamwho will determine if they will report the material to the police. The company guidelinescontain information of what is considered to be criminal based on the law. 325A controversial debate has arisen about whether Information Technology (IT) workers,such as computer engineers or technicians, should report a client who possesses childpornography on their computer. In the US and Canada, bills have recently been proposedto require IT workers to report child pornography. 326 Proposers of these bills claim that itis not a new concept as doctors and nurses have always been required to report suspectedchild abuse. 327 On the other hand, it has been argued by critics of these bills that IT workersshould not report child pornography that they encounter at their workplace because theyare not trained to do so. For example, in the US, the law states that the picture of the childmust be real and not “morphed” or “enhanced” in order to constitute child pornography. Itis difficult enough for legal experts to tell the difference, it is much more challenging foruntrained technicians to know. There can also be legal complications if for example thetechnician saves the image on a disk for evidence. On the one hand, s/he can break the lawfor violation of privacy and breaking a confidentiality agreement with the client, but onthe other hand, if the image is erased, then s/he could be considered to have destroyed theevidence and jeopardising the case. 32880|Private Sector Accountability in Combating the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children