Viewing Files on the Web Considered Possession? 719
Packet Pusher writes "A Georgia lawyer is taking a case to appeals court to prove that the mere act of viewing a website does not constitute possession of the materials that were automatically cached on your hard drive." While the case in question involves pornographic photos, the implications of such a declaration could reach far further.
Holely Cheese (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought if someone knowingly viewed some illegal images, he should at least have the commonsense of clearing the cache!
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:5, Insightful)
This technical know-how shouldn't be required to stay clear of law enforcement.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:2, Insightful)
Luckily it isn't. Not breaking the law is required to stay clear of it (NOTE: parent was talking about people KNOWINGLY looking at illegal images. I see knowing how to clear the cache akin to knowing how to clean blood from the floor so it leaves no marks).
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, there's hell raised on Slashdot about how "people should have a license to use their computer" when threads about Microsoft insecurity causing worms to run rampant and cause networking problems...people often rally a call to hold anyone who cannot maintain/patch/protect their machine accountable. Then we come to a thread like this, and you see a number of posts suggesting that it's not their fault if they don't know how to do something on their computer.
Please! At least the precedence of the law is on our side for holding people accountable for their possessions.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:5, Insightful)
this is important, because you dont' always know wtf a link points to before you click on it. And if you computer chaches a copy of something you where mislead to into viewing, should you be at fault? no.
and then theres that multiple people use any given computer. and that theres no way to prove who looked at or saved what.
There are many reasons why computer should be diffrent. existing laws do not take into account computers at all and many need to be changed.
it is not the end users fault for haveing spyware, i think most people blame MS, and the spyware companies (another palce where new laws need to be taken written)
So PLEASE, take note that computers DO require diffrent laws bceause they are TOTALY diffrent from anything else.
Newsgroups (Score:5, Insightful)
He has a fetish for small breasts and after searching for breasts in the newsgroup names find a category that suits him.
He then decidees to download all the jpg's from the above newsgroup along with 22 other newsgroups that sound like they might interest him.
He does this before he goes to bed and lets them download while he sleeps. He gets up in the morning and turns off this computer. Why not. He works all day. He forgets about downloading the pictures and doesn't look at them.
If some of those 10's of thousands of pictures is (even though the categories do not include young or pedophile or even teen) is he a convictable pedophile?
I would guess that if he is then EVERY user who downloads any pictures from Kazaa or any file from any newsgroup is at risk for downloading ANY supposed legal porn as the fact is that you DO NOT KNOW what is on the file you are about to open. Virus scanning doesn't help here.
Re:Newsgroups (Score:3, Insightful)
Say goodbye to p2p if that were to be the case. And say good bye to downloads from newsgroups. The WWW is done too. How can I know what picture is to be shown to me on a page that I've not yet loaded?
Goatse is a pleasant example of people viewing unexpected pictures.
Whether or not a person is guilty is to be determined.....it is the assumption of g
Re:Newsgroups (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Newsgroups (Score:3, Insightful)
You can make reasonable efforts to keep your bag in sight at all times so someone doesn't get the opportunity. The same cannot be said about stuff you are downloading - you could download a Torrent that claims to be the latest copy of Fedora, only to find it's hard core kiddie porn - how were you to prevent this from happening?
Re:Newsgroups (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, the statute explicitly provides an affirmative defense once the possession becomes knowingly:
The way I read that, if you immediately take "reasonable" (note does not have to be absoultely effective) steps to destroy any images you receive as soon as you become aware of them, this is an affirmative defense. If you let them sit around on your hard drive without even trying to delete them, and you knew about them, then you have a problem.Re:Holely Cheese (Score:5, Insightful)
At first glance, this looks like a Heck ya. However, it brings up an interesting point - were the people watching the superbowl's "wardrobe malfunction" in possession of a nipple picture?
I think the issue is that you can end up places you don't expect to be on the net. Especially if using IE. Now, 400+ pics in temp internet files... that's a lot IMHO. It's suspicious.
I can't see a non techie claiming I'm currently "in possession" of this slashdot page in any meaningful way. I'm viewing it, but there's no exposed way for me to go back to it unless I actively save the content.
Also, if I'm in possession of everything I see on the internet, isn't that a big copyright violation?
I don't think you could reasonably claim files that your browser caches, without your input, as files you have possession of. They are like claiming a TV broadcast is in your possession. Now, I can see using them, in a case like this, to prove/prosecute for *viewing child porn*, but not being in possession of it.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite so. And I agree - NO ONE accidently looks at 150 kiddy porn images in one night. But the question being raised is whether or not the images in question can truly be said to be under his control as defined by law. He didn't attempt to store the images for his later use.
The only reason they were still on his machine was that he was too clueless to clear the cache - a trait that he shares in common
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:3, Interesting)
Typically, items may be seized as evidence if they are "in plain sight." Warrants follow a similar rule: if, during the search of the items in the warrant you discover something, it can be entered into evidence on its own charges.
That means if your warrant only allows you to search the garage, you can't go into the basement and "discover" the crack lab.*
In which case, if the
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:4, Insightful)
You're talking rubbish. If the car brakes go out after 2 years of not servicing the car, yes you're likely to wind up being found negligent. But if you were doing everything right and had it serviced days or weeks beforehand and the mechanic made a mistake the mechanic would be charged, not you.
Furthermore, there's hell raised on Slashdot about how "people should have a license to use their computer"
A few loud zealots do not "hell raised" make.
Then we come to a thread like this, and you see a number of posts suggesting that it's not their fault if they don't know how to do something on their computer.
I hate child exploitation. I have no problems with putting people who make the rubbish in jail. But viewing a web site - any web site - should not result in jail time. Not if you value your freedom!
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an analogy of my own: say you write to a company requesting a mail order catalog and they send you some illegal donkey porn instead. The police (for some reason) search your mailbox and find it. Should you be criminally charged? How about if you do see the donkey porn, but throw it away and they find it in your rubbish? I say 'no' in both cases, and I say 'no' in the case of the browser cache.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:5, Funny)
All the guys I know whose girlfriends/wives also use the computer know EXACTLY what the cache is and how to clear it.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:4, Funny)
Or at least I would. If I had a girlfriend, and wanted to look at illicit internet pictures and didn't want her to know it.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:5, Informative)
Theoretically it is still possible to recover the undelying data that was over-written. In practice it is very expensive and not 100% guaranteed.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:4, Interesting)
This should read "In common IT myths, it is still possible to recover the underlying data that was over-written. In reality, it's not possible at all." Take it from someone who spent several years working in data forensics and repeatedly dealt with statements from bosses/clients along the lines of "Well, I read on the Internet that you can recover overwritten data with a [STM|MFM|whatever], and that teh NSA and CIA know how to do it."
It's bullshit. Trust me, it's bullshit. Peter Gutmann (teaches down in NZ) wrote a paper for USENIX '96 that references a couple of laboratory-grade techniques that might have worked on hard drives manufactured before 1996. THIS IS WHERE EVERYBODY GOT THE MYTH FROM. What nobody realizes is that Gutmann published an updated version of that paper in which he retracts virtually all his conclusions about recovering data on hard drives because IT'S NOT POSSIBLE ANYMORE.
Not to mention the fact that there have been a couple of incidents where large companies have spent multi-millions trying to make such a process work, and came away entirely empty-handed.
It's bullshit. On a modern hard drive, if you overwrite your data once, you're secure. Maybe if you're dealing with some ancient disks you have stuff to worry about, but that's it.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, now I'll go back to listening to Art Bell.
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:3, Informative)
Put this at the beginning of your Mozilla launch script
mountpoint ~/.mozilla || { echo 'Mozilla profile directory not a tempfs'; exit 1; }
Re:Holely Cheese (Score:3, Funny)
Same old story (Score:2)
Re:Same old story (Score:2)
Re:Same old story (Score:5, Interesting)
This would be more like the cop finding rocks of crack stuck in the treads of your tires.
Re:Same old story (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, that's a bad analogy.
The key question here is- does the fact that someone has browser caching on instead of off make something drastically more illegal.
Re:Same old story (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what I think these people are trying to defend against. Just because a software program on your computer loaded material on to your computer, does not mean that YOU intentionally did it. Sure you run into the "my friend did it" situation, but this is an actual legitimate defense since you can control your friend easier than you can control a malicious piece of software or website.
20 years over 4 hours? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's absurd that someone could face 20 hours in prison for viewing illegal pictures for 4 hours. But that's just me.
Re:20 years over 4 hours? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:20 years over 4 hours? (Score:3)
Re:20 years over 4 hours? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. By viewing the images of exploited children you are creating a demand. Higher demand means more kids life's are ruined to create more pictures.
2. Punishments generally reflect how hard it is to catch a crime, not how much damage it causes. This is why you can go to prison for 209320938 years just for copying a movie for your friend.
Re:20 years over 4 hours? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. By viewing the images of exploited children you are creating a demand. Higher demand means more kids life's are ruined to create more pictures.
Except that this doesn't apply in a post scarcity economy. If you buy apples, then you create demand for more apples. But by your logic then if you download music from a p2p site then you are creating demand for more music and thus more music will be created. However, in reality it is very hard to determine if this is the case, and if anything the opposite seems more likely to be true. But in any event, this many didn't 'use up' any of the pictures so by downloading them there aren't any less pictures for others to download, so no new ones need to be created.
Re:20 years over 4 hours? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a finite amount of content on a site, and a finite number of visitors. Even if the content isn't "used up" for real, the consumption of the same content by a visitor has a diminishing return, and the visitor demands new content or they leave. You can run a site without adding content as long as you have a steady flow of new users, but it's not sustainable. If you want people to come back, you add new content.
Either the perv is paying for the site, and if there's no new content he stops paying, or if it's a free site, the advertizer stops paying. Either way, the site owner needs to find some way for people to keep paying, and that way is by adding new content, which in this case is pictures of children being molested.
Re:20 years over 4 hours? (Score:3, Insightful)
I just flipped through a Crutchfield catalog. Did that do anything for the demand for car radios?
Seems like terrorism and child pornography are hot button issues that require logic be checked at the door at all times.
Illegalities of simulation (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm forgetting the exact name of the act in the US, but there was a law put into force about 5 years ago, got repealed a few years ago, that specifically targetted simulated pornography for th
Re:20 years over 4 hours? (Score:4, Insightful)
But is this justice?
Re:20 years over 4 hours? (Score:2)
Heck, I'll call it a day of..
Now I'm worried (Score:3, Funny)
You think that's "viewing"? FTA: A federal agent said Barton's computer contained more than 450 pornographic images
From my computer:
$ find graphics/xxx/ -name '*.jpg' | wc -l
25584
Now, That's what I call "viewing"!
Time to move those mp3's (Score:5, Funny)
A good example (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A good example (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A good example (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps. But certainly not by following the 1.040.000 links that Google finds in 0.21 seconds for "lolitas young pre-teen nude sex".
The fact is that true child pornography is *extremely* rare anywhere, both in the internet and the physical world. Children just aren't sexy. They don't have the bodies for being sexy. People who find children
Re:A good example (Score:3, Insightful)
Next you'll equate saying 'no' to a childs demands with emotional cruelty and sending them to thier room with locking them in a 1m x 1m tin shed in some tropical third world prison camp.
Mycroft
Re:A good example (Score:2)
But that's not the issue here. The issue is what constitutes the act of "possessing" something. Without explicit language to the contrary, I strongly believe that looking at a web page does not constitute possessing its content simply by
Re:A good example (Score:3, Insightful)
Spyware? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not this again... (Score:2)
Accedents (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with the lawyer in so far as the cache should not be considered property.
Re:Accedents (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Accedents (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends. If they violated another person, they need both prison and counseling. Looking at a web page is another matter though.
20 years, not hours (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very, very dangerous. With typosquatting domains that make money of of pr0n pop ups and use endless "on exit" java script loops, anybody could wind up with illegal pr0n on their computer--and Walker County could prosecute you for each and every image as a separate count, regardless of whether you meant to download it.
This case is much, much bigger than the one person charge here. Charging people with possession for the mere act of seeing something is positively Orwellian.
Re:20 years, not hours (Score:5, Informative)
The principle is that Walker County can charge you with possession even if you have never requested the images or viewed them. The images could be preloads, popups, or even downloaded via mal-ware. They don't care. They will charge you with a count for every image that your computer viewed--and pop-ups or mal-ware could download images for four hours.
Given that the Bush Administration believes that even pr0n that features consenting adults is illegal, this prosecution should be seen as extremely dangerous to your civil rights. It won't take vile child porn to get you thrown in jail--just anything the Administration doesn't approve of. It is guilt by association. Guilt for seeing. Guilty knowledge. And we are talking big time jail.
You are very impressed that he viewed the images for four hours. If that is what impresses you so, then the law should just state that viewing the images is illegal rather than possession. But laws don't do that because we know that we shouldn't throw people in jail for having seen something--hence the reason we require possession. If he had seen the images on TV we wouldn't be talking right now, but web browsers keep a temporary cache that is meant to be *temporary* and should not be considered possession anymore than the fact you could type in a URL and get the images should be considered possession.
Mind you, child molesters need to go to jail, but thought crimes and laws that presume guilt are a danger to us all.
PS, Orwellian *is* capitalized since it is based on Orwell's name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian [wikipedia.org]
Re:20 years, not hours (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:20 years, not hours (Score:5, Insightful)
It is exactly Orwellian, "thought crime" specifically. He didn't do anything in the real world, just looked at some images. (If he paid for them, that's another thing, but since it wasn't mentioned in TFA, which would have made a stronger case, then I assume he didn't.)
One can sit on the subway and read American Psycho, one of the most revolting stories I've attempted to read without being arrested for thinking about extreme torture, murder and sexual abuse. One can look at books, movies or comics about "True Crime", complete with photos of dead bodies without harassment. As a society we can certainly disapprove of some or all of these actions, but to make it a serious crime worthy of decades of jail time boggles the mind.
How to go to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Step two, go to Google and search on something
Step three, Mozilla will immediately start fetching the pages in the background and storing them on your machine.
Step four, get arrested for having every link on the results page cached on your machine. Even the crazy pornographic (and illegal) pages that you didn't click.
Re:How to go to jail (Score:2)
Re:How to go to jail (Score:2)
It also causes people to get off on technicalities when they are surfing illegal porn.
Re:How to go to jail (Score:2, Interesting)
Step two: Find out when someone's house is about to be searched.
Step three: Place said kiddy porn in their house.
Would the person then be charged? I don't think so (assuming the cops learn that the person didn't deliberately obtain the porn). Should be the same case with the internet.
If I have a page I've viewed that is obviously for porn (either accidental click or the google thing) and I don't click on any other links, it's fairly easy to prove I didn't deliberately view t
Re:How to go to jail (Score:3, Informative)
As I'm sure you've been told already, prefetching DOES NOT fetch hrefs, it fetches
tags, when specified. I'd wager that less than 5% of all web designers are actively using these.Hopefully not possesion (Score:3, Funny)
People click links (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a link in my sig. If there are illegal images there, should the people who follow the link be subject to prosecution?
Re:People click links (Score:2)
The link in your sig is dead, so there's no pr0n there.
Re:People click links (Score:2)
Victimless Crimes, in General (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if someone creates porn from actual people, unwilling to or unable to consent, that's something the creator has done. And maybe if someone has paid to fund that, there's an issue. If this guy has paid, they should go on the money. If he's not, I don't see how they have any good cause even though they may have a case.
When you start to admit victimless crimes, the whole algebra of causality is turned on its head and lots of strange things result, not the least of which is this case.
Re:Victimless Crimes, in General (Score:2)
Re:Victimless Crimes, in General (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Victimless Crimes, in General (Score:5, Interesting)
Needless to say this poses the question of "Harm" and how we as a society can protect ourselves from harm. The slippery slope that is the enforcement of morality.
Where can you make sure that any law can be passed? Do it for the protection of the innocent and impressionable children. Illinois just recently PASSED a law that will ban the sale of violent video games to minors. Obscenity laws can be found on the federal to township levels.
Does any of this make sense? Do drug laws, obscenity laws, prostitution laws, marriage laws, sex laws, liquor laws, or a slew of other laws make sense? If you ask Mill's or a number of libertarians, no. The only laws that make sense are those that protect against harm. Physical harm can be easily identified, it's the mental harm that people get so cloudy on.
If I do drugs am I harming anyone (assume that in this case that drug making, transportation, and selling is legal)? Am I harming anyone when a willing partner is ready to sell their sexual services and I take them up of the offer (assume that in this case protection is used ... etc)?
Don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with you and not assuming you don't know about Utility, just trying to expand on your claim a little further.
begging the question? (Score:4, Informative)
No, it raises the question. Begging the question [wikipedia.org] is another thing entirely.
Consider newsbots also. (Score:2, Insightful)
And, I haven't read the case the case, but what is the user supposed to do about cache/swap/temporary folder?
Mens Rea -- criminal intent (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, if possession of kiddie pr0n requires mens rea, then the lawyer has a good argument. Most lusers do not know that the browser has caches and so did not know they possessed the offending material. The /. '1337 couldn't get off that easily :)
The prosecution can easily prove they viewed pr0n, but that may not be illegal. To posess something requires an act of knowingly taking possession. IANAL.
Re:Mens Rea -- criminal intent (Score:2)
I should hope so, otherwise it is possible to get anyone sent to prison just by emailing them a kiddy-porn JPG. By the time they see it, it's already on their hard drive and thus they are "in possession"...
This is serious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether what this guy did is morally or ethically wrong is a different issue than whether what he did is illegal. If you have kiddie porn in your browser cache, do you possess it? What if someone mails you some raunchy spam and your mail client caches a copy on your disk -- do you possess it? In either case, planting evidence that could get someone serious jail time suddenly becomes trivial! I could put a link to an obscene photo on my home page and with a small amount of effort make it invisible to you but trick your browser into downloading (and possibly caching) it. Or I could wait until the Google crawler comes by, and then extort a little cash out of Google because now I can show that they possess this photo, etc. (The links don't point to my site; there's no evidence that I've ever possessed the photo.)
This is far from simple.
Re:This is serious. (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine that someone has a pile of kiddie porn in their house. There's no way to prove that they have ever looked at it. The thing that's provable is whether it's physically in their house.
Look at the laws: people are charged with possession of kiddie porn, not looking at it; possession of controlled substances, not getting high, etc. That's why the definitions are so important here: if someone can effectively place illegal images or documents in your "possession" without any cooperation from you, then these laws are meaningless.
Can't Tell (Score:4, Funny)
Doh (Score:3, Funny)
And this children, is why one should RTFA.
*cough*
A flurry of frame-ups? (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot a couple things (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Web cache would show changes in the site over time. Easy money for defense.
2) You think there would be any proceedings without finding the site owner? They may seem to be a consumer, but you would be the provider. They would hunt you down sooner than him/her.
2) In order to even try it, you would have to get your hands on kiddie porn. In this case, you should be publically gutted, after ebing castrated first.
Fun to read, but a weak strategy.
Re:A flurry of frame-ups? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A flurry of frame-ups? (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't possession something you take? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's something you take, then accidentally seeing something on the web doesn't imply possession.
On the other hand, deliberately seeing something means that you are clearly taking it to your computer.
It's a subtle difference, but it seems to me important here.
Here, particularly, it seems to me that he took possession of many files, he was clearly deliberately possessing them.
View rate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pornography sure... (Score:2)
Click here and go to prison (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't seem fair, does it? You were just curious where the link went.
Google Images (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about intent. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is no different than borrowing someone else's kiddie porn magazine and reading it. Even if it's temporary, you intentionally had possession at some point. That makes you guilty.
Whether he knew the copies would remain on his computer is irrelevant if he intentionally accessed them, knowing they were pornographic images of children.
If there was no evidence that he intentionally accessed them, knowing what they were, then he should get off.
why do I get the sudden feeling... (Score:4, Funny)
Why do I get the feeling that suddenly there are a few extra terabytes of free disk space across the country?
Virtual Crimes.... (Score:4, Insightful)
For all the people, before there is a holy war, let me set some things straight. If a person arranges to meet someone underage, send them to jail. If a person chats with someone underage and tries to solicit sex, send them to jail. I am all for sending people to jail who harm others.
But when it comes to looking at something, should this be a crime?
I am afraid the direction we are going in. Are we protecting children, or are we making ourselves feel like we are protecting children because we locked up people who looked at the wrong websites?
This is an issue that is only going to get worse. What about websites with instructions on how to make bombs? What about websites that don't explicitly tell you how to make a bomb, but give you all the information in a way that anyone could figure out?
Okay, so you want to talk about intent. What is the intent of the person looking at a website? What is the intent of a person looking at a website with a naked girl? Are we going to start measuring the sexual excitement a person has?
If the real goal is to protect children, how about going after the website owners? Why not spend the money which would lock up joe sixpack for his browser cache violation, and use that money to find and hunt down the people who abuse the children? It seems to me that hunting down the website owners, and those who commited the violent act is much more effective than spending money on joe blow because one morning at 2am after drinking all night he went on the web and found the wrong website.
I feel like it is so difficult a position to defend, yet if we want free speech, free expression of ideas, then we have to draw a line when it comes to throwing people in jail, to those crimes that harm someone or something.
I would hate to see what society would do to Newton if he was alive today. There is a guy who 100% would look at anything and everything, and probably not be able to tell the difference of right and wrong. How he figured out calculus between the fits of emotional turmoil and pychological collapse is beyond me. Maybe we can have a wing of the prision for thinkers, people with an IQ over 140. Wait... that might be a bad idea.
and so it begins...the end (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, what, you're not soft on childporn, are you? You don't want terrorist roaming around and using the internet without punity, do you?
If it's emotional and self-righteous enough, they know few will dare to oppose. Think of the children! think of 9/11! Ok, and now agree to our huge privacy invasion, because, you want to stop those people doing it again, don't you? Or are you pro CP and terrorism?
With such demagogic tricks they can fool the public almost every time.
Is retaining the best way to go? Does it actually help at all? Is the very unlikely possibility of stopping a relatively few worth the privacy invasion and the further degradation of civic rights of millions? Nowhere is that question ever raised by those that propose these laws. Instead, they continue to use platitudes: "We need the way to stop terrorists!" But as I said before:
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous? Everyone using the internet? No? Then why should their privacy be invaded? Why not adher to decades of legal provisions, where it used to be that you could only be 'tapped' when you were considered a suspect, and AFTER a court agreed to it. Nowadays , everyone is a suspect, and the courts don't come into play anymore when your communications are being tapped.
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being invaded', right?
Re:Sophistry at its finest... (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue is that he's being charged with *posession*. Technically he's in violation, but if that argument can hold water in court, then anyone who views copyrighted images online using a cached browser can be charged with unauthorized copying of copyrighted images.
Re:Sophistry at its finest... (Score:2)
Re:Sophistry at its finest... (Score:2)
Nice argument on the surface, but when you look at the particulars of the case, it just doesn't wash.
From TFA:
Over a third of the pics cached on his system were kiddie porn. That high a percentage cannot be contributed to 'clicking on the wrong link'.
Obviously, some threshold for the distinction between 'accidental' and 'intentional' downloading of contraband pics needs to b
Re:Sophistry at its finest... (Score:2)
and before you know it, 1/3 of your cache is filled with crud.
And the cache would show that these images were all downloaded in a few seconds, demonstrating that they weren't downloaded at the user's behest.
The answer is that in addition to the simple fact of the images being present, intent to view the images must also be present...and proven.
Re:Sophistry at its finest... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sophistry at its finest... (Score:2)
Someone could easily post an illegal picture as a 1-1 pixel image in a post on a site like this and it'd be in your cache.
Really. Do you know what the definition of 'pixel' is? Just how pornographic do you think a '1-1 pixel image' is capable of being?
You ARE kidding, right? Images can be hidden. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who wants to be a real jerk could easily hide hi-res porn images on a site this way. And if the person was duped to visiting a web site that appears to be legitimate, he might never know what kind if images just ended up on his system. We often see this same type of thing on
And the vast majority of people don't even know what a cache is, let alone how to clean it out regularly, so the argument about "They should know to clean it out regularly" doesn't work.
Re:You ARE kidding, right? Images can be hidden. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sophistry at its finest... (Score:2)
My argument is that you have no control over what goes in the cache. *Everything* a web page sends to you goes in the cache, even if you don't actually view it. You could easily put a 1x1 picture of child porn in a legit looking web page and it'll be downloaded to the cache.
I'm not saying this guy's not guilty as sin, but you have to think before you lay down blanket laws.
Re:Sophistry at its finest... (Score:3, Funny)
Well that one is just too easy...
[insert 'penis size' joke here]
Re:Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, etc. are screw (Score:2)
Tim Berners-Lee?