As the kind of technology used by offenders advances, it has become increasingly necessary for global law enforcement agencies to adopt proactive strategies in order to effectively combat the threat posed by the organisation of child exploitation networks on the Dark Web. In spite of concerns regarding the collection of evidence, Queensland Police’s Taskforce Argos has cultivated a reputation for success in the covert infiltration of online forums dedicated to child exploitation material, due largely to the relatively loose restrictions placed on it, which allow officers to commit a wide range of criminal acts whilst conducting controlled undercover operations.
BroadhurstRGraboskyPAlazabMBouhoursBChonS (2014) An analysis of the nature of groups engaged in cyber crime. International Journal of Cyber Criminology8(1): 1–20.
ErdelyRLiberatoreMKerleTLevineBNShieldsC (2010) Forensic investigation of peer-to-peer file sharing networks. Digital Investigation7: 95–103.
6.
FennellyJE (1991) Refinement of the inevitable discovery exception: The need for a good faith requirement. William Mitchell Law Review17(4): 1085–1109.
7.
FerraroMMCaseyE (2004) Investigating child exploitation and pornography: The internet, law and forensic science. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
8.
GarnettNW (2004) Dow Jones & Co v Gutnick: Will Australia’s long jurisdictional reach chill internet speech world-wide. Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal13: 61.
9.
GoldsteinSL (1987) The Sexual Exploitation of Children: A Practical Guide to Assessment, Investigation, and Intervention. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
HoydalHFStangvikEOHansenNR (2017) Breaking the Dark Net: Why the police share abuse pics to save children. VG17 October. Available at: www.vg.no/spesial/2017/undercover-darkweb/?(accessed 22 January 2018).
12.
JohE (2009) Breaking the law to enforce it: Undercover police participation in crime. Stanford Law Review62(1): 239–273.
13.
KimminsJP (1998) Report of the Inquiry into Allegations of Misconduct in the Investigation of Paedophilia in Queensland. Brisbane: Criminal Justice Commission.
14.
KroneT (2005) Queensland Police stings in online chat rooms. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice301: 1–6.
15.
LopuszynskiNL (2004) Father Constitution, tell the police to stay on their own side: Can extra-jurisdictional arrests made in direct violation of state law ever cross the Fourth Amendment’s ‘reasonableness’ line?DePaul Law Review53(3): 1347–1400.
16.
LusthausJ (2012) Trust in the world of cybercrime. Global Crime13(2): 71–94.
OswellD (2006) When images matter: Internet child pornography, forms of observation and an ethics of the virtual. Information, Communication & Society9(2): 244–265.
21.
PitlerRM (1968) The fruit of the poisonous tree revisited and Shepherdized. California Law Review56(3): 579–651.
22.
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act2000(QLD).
23.
ReidenbergJR (2005) Technology and internet jurisdiction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review153(6): 1951–1974.
ShouvlinDP (1981) Preventing the sexual exploitation of children: A model act. Wake Forest Law Review17(4): 535–560.
26.
SimpsonWD (1968) The control of deviant behaviour in Australia: A police approach. Queensland State Archives Item ID380908, Administration file, police.
27.
SkolnickJH (1982) Deception by police. Criminal Justice Ethics1(2): 40–54.
28.
TullisRLudlowL (1975) Admissibility of evidence seized in another jurisdiction: Choice of law and the exclusionary rule. University of San Francisco Law Review10(1): 67–91.
29.
TylerRPStoneLE (1985) Child pornography: Perpetuating the sexual victimisation of children. Child Abuse and Neglect9(3): 313–318.
30.
UchidaCDBynumTSRoganDMuraskyD (1988) Acting in good faith: The effects of United States v Leon on police and the courts. Arizona Law Review30(3): 467–495.
31.
VendiusTT (2015) Proactive undercover policing and sexual crimes against children on the internet. The European Review of Organised Crime2(2): 6–24.
32.
WellsMFinkelhorDWolakJMitchellKJ (2007) Defining child pornography: Law, enforcement dilemmas in investigations of internet child pornography possession. Police Practice and Research8(3): 269–282.
