Source
Joakal•

Wow, one of them considered my suggestion. I hope the penalties are severe though. I recall stating that if they do not store or transmit images, then surely they can be subjected for $100,000 per infringement. The hilarious thing is, the company promised the same privacy in UK and USA but still leaked at least thousands of images.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=ic/aviation/report.htm

2
dhaskOP•

An offence against the relevant section committed by the airport operator (as the purchaser and operator of the security equipment) would carry 200 penalty units, and an offence committed by the security vendor in supplying the equipment would carry 100 penalty units.

A "penalty unit" is defined in the Crimes Act, and is currently $110 per unit, which would make the airport operator liable for up to $22,000 per infringement. Not quite what you suggested, but let's face it, this isn't as serious a crime as downloading a copy of a song.

1
Joakal•

Interesting, exposing a picture of Julia Gillard's naked body has less penalty than copyright infringement.

1
random555•

I bet theres quite a long list of serious crimes that have a lot lower penalty than copyright infringement

1
dhaskOP•

Interesting, exposing a picture of Julia Gillard's naked body has less penalty than copyright infringement.

Being exposed to a picture of Julia Gillard's naked body is, IMO, penalty enough.

1
Jez_WP•

What exactly is the definition of transmit? As I understand it, the images are viewed by someone in a 'discrete location', so as to avoid the embarassment of having the security guy a few metres away from you seeing your anatomy rendered. Though I haven't actually traveled recently and don't even know if these things are at Sydney airport.

1
Joakal•

They're not viewed by anyone; the images undergo a 'threat assessment', they are then deleted. According to the rationale they stated in asking for submissions.

2