Viewing Files on the Web Considered Possession?

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.

Comments

Holely Cheese

[fembots]

What if someone "Save As" illegal images into "Temporary Internet files" folder?

I thought if someone knowingly viewed some illegal images, he should at least have the commonsense of clearing the cache!

Re:Holely Cheese

[RedWizzard]

If your car breaks go out and you hit someone, you're almost certainly going to be considered at fault.

Actually unless you're found negligent it is unlikely that you would be found to be at fault. It's even more unlikey that criminal charges would result (let alone a conviction). Your analogy doesn't support your argument.

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

[MoralHazard]

Theoretically it is still possible to recover the undelying data that was over-written. In practice it is very expensive and not 100% guaranteed.

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:Same old story

[MillionthMonkey]

They're going to try the "my friend put the crack in my glove compartment" line.

This would be more like the cop finding rocks of crack stuck in the treads of your tires.

Re:Sophistry at its finest...

[Synbiosis]

"Sorry, but you can't very well look at the pics without downloading them...the file is just in your cache instead of a location you specify. As for not printing a hard copy, I fail to see how that is at all relevant."

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:A good example

[pHatidic]

I agree completely. If I have pictures of airplanes on my computer, it isn't the equivalent of hijacking an airplane and flying it into the world trade centers. If I have pictures of my front lawn, that isn't the same as making a fertilizer bomb and blowing up the federal building. But for some reason having pictures of naked kids means that you are going to commit child rape. Granted, I think kiddy porn is disgusting myself, but 20 years in prison seems a bit excessive. People who rape actual kids get less than that.

Re:Accedents

[fourtyfive]

Obviously 4 hours _isnt_ an accident, so your point is moot. I didnt read the article (this is slashdot!) but if all he's getting is 20 hours of prison time, thats a joke. This person needs intensive therapy (10-15 hours per week). Sexual predators have a mental illness that disconnects them with the emotionality of sex and focuses them intensly on the sexuality. I'm tired of seeing sex offenders (so called "perverts") being stuck in prison and then released back into society. These people do not need prison time, they arent criminals (except by law), they are persons with _mental disabilities_! And as such they need counseling to assist them in seeing why they're wrong instead of just sending them to prison.

It's about intent.

[spiritraveller]

If they showed that he knew what they were and downloaded them intentionally, then he is guilty, regardless of whether he knew they would stay on his harddrive.

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.

Re:20 years over 4 hours?

[pHatidic]

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:Victimless Crimes, in General

[SuperDuG]

Welcome to the world of paternalism and Mill's Theory of Utility. I'd give a nutshell, but knowing what I know of Mill's a nutshell would do no one any favors. For those interested ... start here...

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.