Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Top Court Quashes Child Porn Warrant
m.ducharme writes "The CBC is reporting that the Supreme Court of Canada has handed down a decision quashing a search warrant used to obtain the computer of a man accused of possession of child porn. 'Urbain P. Morelli maintained his charter rights were violated when police searched his computer for child pornography after a technician who had visited his home to work on the machine expressed concerns to police.' What the Slashdot community may find notable about this decision is the distinction drawn between 'accessing' and 'possessing' digital images, most particularly the recognition that a user does not 'possess' cached data. From the decision: '[35] When accessing Web pages, most Internet browsers will store on the computer's own hard drive a temporary copy of all or most of the files that comprise the Web page. This is typically known as a "caching function" and the location of the temporary, automatic copies is known as the "cache." While the configuration of the caching function varies and can be modified by the user, cached files typically include images and are generally discarded automatically after a certain number of days, or after the cache grows to a certain size. [36] On my view of possession, the automatic caching of a file to the hard drive does not, without more, constitute possession. While the cached file might be in a "place" over which the computer user has control, in order to establish possession, it is necessary to satisfy mens rea or fault requirements as well. Thus, it must be shown that the file was knowingly stored and retained through the cache.'"
Will he have his computer back now?
Emotions! In your brain!
I didn't know that our legal system understood computers even that well, to distinguish browser cache "oh crap, what the hell did I just see?!" from deliberate "I done saved 3115 photos to my desktop that I probably shouldn't have".
Of, wait, it's not my legal system, it's Canada's. nevermind. Grats Canadians on having sane judges?
Surprisingly sophisticated and reasonable thinking on behalf of the court. I'm impressed.
The legal system understands anything that someone explains to it. So if you explain something to a judge or a lawyer, he or she is supposed to think about what you've explained and figure out how the law applies to it. A cache isn't something it's hard to explain, so--particularly when it's really important to a case--a judge will understand it.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
1. Set cache size to 100 GB.
2. "accidentally" browse CP
3. ??
4. Profit!!
What makes you so sure he wasn't a victim of spam or the like? In the US, you have to show that the person knowingly and willingly sought out to download the images. If there's just 3, that's gonna be impossible to prove. If there's half a billion, then intent is easy to show. This was recently changed because people were spamming the hell out of other people with sick porn to try and get them in trouble. Distribution, on the other hand, ignores intent completely.
I think they should stop wasting resources hunting pervs that look at the stuff and spend time hunting the predators that actually produce the stuff. It gets especially silly when they want to arrest someone for looking at cartoon porn - who is the victim? Or my biggest gripes is that they are harassing kids for taking pictures of themselves and sharing them. So they are self-victimizing and we need to give them a felony and register them as a sex offender instead of just telling their parents? I had a girlfriend when I was a teenager and we did more than hold hands and *gasp* there were provocative photos sometimes. Guess I'd better turn myself in.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Sounds a lot worse as a charge...
"Yes M'lud, Mr Taco is charged with making these images"
sounds a lot worse than
"Yes M'lud, Mr Taco is charged with owning a computer running Microsoft Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 5, which, when Mr Taco visited the website in question, caused cached copies of the images in question to be stored temporarily on the hard disk, in an area of files not used or accessed directly by Mr Taco, but by the Microsoft products aforementioned"
The latter is also sounding a lot weaker if you're trying to sell yourself as tough of peedos, anything for the childruuun, vote for meeeee!
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
It doesn't relate at all. US doesn't give a shit what Canada does when enforcing their own laws. The US will shout, complain and threaten Canada and other countries to be more like them but Canadian and American laws have nothing to do with each other. In fact there are several areas where laws differ greatly such as copyright, medical marijuana, banking laws and gay rights.
It's much more likely and far more reasonable that you could have cached images on your computer without your consent than contraband in your car without your consent. The prosecution could still argue that you are responsible, but they would have a difficult time overcoming the "reasonable doubt" of innocence. On the other hand, if you had contraband in your car, you would have to give a reason why it could be there without your knowledge. After all, your car didn't pick them up itself. Still, if you did so, and it was sufficient to provide a reasonable doubt (ie. just saying so isn't enough), then charges would probably be dropped.
So, you are basically stating for the public record that YOU PERSONALLY ACCEPT TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for every last byte of data stored on your computers...
I hope your computer are stocked in a vault to which only you have physical access, and which is blocked from the net, and which doesn't have any mains power.
After all, you just stated you believe it is an absolute offence with no possible or acceptable defence.
Good of you to volunteer me for the same bullshit without first asking me though.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
I was wondering if the service personnel browsing dude's computer was routine? I've fixed a lot of PC's without rifling through the users cache and image files, other than if they were infected with a virus. Even backing up user profiles and data, I could tell you which files were infected but not what they were doing with their computer.
Just wondering why the technician was going through all that stuff? Seems like service people are being a lot more thorough than is required to get the computer working again.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I was with you until
What is it with Americans being so gleeful about prison rape? It's barbaric.
It doesn't, it is Canada.
Constructive possession is a concept where if the drugs are accessible to you, e.g. you are the passenger of a car and drugs are found in the center console, you can be charged with possession without even knowing you are there. This sort of charge routinely fucks people out of gainful employment for decades; imagine this. Your buddy picks you up, and you are pulled over, drugs are found in the center console. Although you had no idea the drugs were there, you can be charged with possession if the driver doesn't admit to owning the drugs, or perhaps even if he does. If you are moderately wealthy, you get a lawyer, he plays buddy-buddy with the judge and prosecutor, and the charge will get dropped or downgraded to a non-drug offense, but if you are poor which is overwhelmingly the case, you wind up with probation and no hopes of finding a job in the next decade.
The only problem with this ruling is that, after a few incidents like this one occur, there will be a hew and outcry, and harsher and more encompassing laws passed, which will inevitably result in more arrests and convictions of people who oughtn't be bothered.
Too often we use the term "he got off" when we should really be saying "the police are incompetent".
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
This kind of crap would not fly in the United States. The computer user might not have knowingly possessed the images through his computer's browser cache, but I am sure he knowingly viewed the images through his browser.
But the law specifically says you cannot possess such material. It does not state that you cannot *view* the images. Which means that while the cache constitutes likely proof to show that he did view it -- that is not a criminal act. The distinction you're trying to erase is exactly the one that prevented him from being convicted.
I've had objectionable stuff pop up through ad-blockers before when randomly surfing as well that I'd like to report (not even sure if it was legit or not, closed windows fast) ... but haven't, for that very fear. Sad, but what can you do? I'm certainly not going to incur thousands of dollars of legal fees to try to figure out the "right" way to report something that would probably either be ignored, on a jurisdiction that the police are unable to do anything about, or might get me accused of a felony. If it turns out its even illegal.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
that's a good decision, possession of child porn is not a good enough reason to seize a computer, because we all know the true motives of laws enabling arbitrary seizures
Let's see.... based on the description, it is possible that the guy was into child-porn. However, what bugs me is that the evidence that was described to get the search warrant was this:
- a web cam pointed at an area where a three-year old plays, and plugged into a vcr
- a list of links in the taskbar, where it is unclear whether the technician actually followed them to identify them as adult and child porn. Or where they labeled "adult porn" and "child porn"? The article is unclear here.
And... that's about it. At no time did the technician actually see child porn on the computer. At no time did he see any abuse, or even signs that abuse has happened. So really, the warrant was based on the idea that pointing a web cam at your kid can only happen for the reason of producing child porn, and that the names of certain websites indicate the content of their images. That's bullshit. The first one is more likely due to parents wanting to have memories of their kids, and the second.... well, the odds that every girl on a pornsite that just happened to turn 18 is actually 18 are damn near zero. I'd say naming conventions for porn sites don't exactly hold up to scrutiny.
I'm assuming here that the conviction happened because the warrant actually turned up child pornography. What pisses me off though is that the warrant itself was bogus, and and now Mr kiddyporn is going free on a technicality.
However, I'd like to remind everyone that technicalities are there to protect everyone of us from idiots in power. What happened was exactly what was supposed to have happened. I just hope that the police now do it right and get him again... because he is likely to slip up again.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Maybe he didn't. A number of browsers nowadays have a prefetch feature: they'll follow any links on a page and fetch the pages those links point to, to help speed things up when (or if) the user clicks on those links. That results in data in the cache for pages the user never visited.
It's a Republican thing. Most Republicans are closet gays, and basically spend their days dreaming of getting reamed up the ass by fat hairy men. Rather than admit their true queer feelings, they end up feeling very guilty for some reason. It's probably because their closet-gay priests (who like to diddle children) scream repeatedly about how "horrid" homosexuality supposedly is.
Anyway, being socially unable to be openly homosexual, these Republicans push hard for lengthy jail terms for minor "crimes", ensuring years and years of sodomy. Then they secretly hope that some day they'll be caught, and get to live their lifelong fantasy of near-constant bumsex and anal rape.
Now CP peddlers know to store their collections on your computer because you'll take the blame.
mens rea
What? What the fuck kind of barbarian country is Canada where mens rea is still alive and kicking? Here, in the Civilized United States of America Incorporated, mens rea was abolished in the Nixonian War On Drugs.
That's it. We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.
--
BMO
Why does your sig go to one of the low-end placeholder websites?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
But the law specifically says you cannot possess such material. It does not state that you cannot *view* the images. Which means that while the cache constitutes likely proof to show that he did view it -- that is not a criminal act. The distinction you're trying to erase is exactly the one that prevented him from being convicted.
In the link to the decision you can see in the second paragraph that the Criminal Code of Canada apparently does make this distinction. There are two charges: Possession of Child Pornography, and Accessing Child Pornography. This guy was charged with possession, not accessing. If the charge had been made under s. 163.1(4.1) (accessing) rather than s. 163.1(4) (possessing), the outcome likely would have been different. The cops screwed up, it's as simple as that.
Very correct, although of course now that the argument that a web cache doesn't constitute possession has been made in one court system it might be possible to adapt the argument for another, and hopefully it will happen. It's utterly insane that somebody should be held legally liable for the contents of their cache.
We ought to just lock up anyone who looks at a child anywhere at any time, who knows what they're thinking when they see that child?
And apparently some people even MAKE THEIR OWN children, we need to put a stop to this immediately.
Did anyone commenting here actually read TFA (specifically, the court ruling)?
The reasoning for why the conviction was quashed had absolutely nothing to do with cached images. It was quashed because the police were ruled to have conducted an illegal (as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) search, despite having a search warrant to search for possession of child pornography.
Essentially, this is what happened:
1) Technician shows up to install an Internet connection on accused computer.
2) Technician notices probable child porn links in IE favourites (along with other legal porn links), and sees (legal) porn image, either on browser homepage or desktop. Technician also notices webcam hooked up to VCR (turned off at the time) directed at accused's 3 year old child.
3) Technician returns next day to finish work, and finds computer had been formatted.
4) Technician reports to social worker about possible child abuse. Social worker in turn informs RCMP.
5) Police obtain search warrant based on technician's observations.
6) (Four months after technician's initial visit) Police search accused's home, and find child pornography.
The court essentially ruled that the technician's observations did not legally justify a search. And I find this patently ridiculous.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Can you explain any legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle?
The differences between this and having an object in cache in your vehicle are obvious. Everything you place in your vehicle is your responsibility, if it poses a safety hazard on the road, you are in direct control over everything that gets placed in there, you can inspect any item at any time, and you have a legal responsibility to do so, in order to ascertain the safe operation of your vehicle on public property.
With a browser cache it is obvious -- any URL object that the browser ever sees reference too may be eligible to be cached (depending on its size, and how long ago it was accessed): it is automatic, and being in the cache does not necessarily indicate that a human has ever seen it.
Web sites may cache objects in the background, antivirus software may load objects in the background to pre-scan. Another person may have touched the computer and visited something on accident they didn't to, and immediately closed the window, with no knowledge about any copy being retained.
Something is not very right when someone that goes drunk in a highway (and be able to cause the death of a lot of people, in fact, it keeps happening frequently) get a far less punishment (few months of jail and a fine at best?) that someone browsing random internet pages and hitting one with images that could be qualified as child porn (years in jail). In fact, maybe someone that physically attacks and do permanent injuries to someone could get less punishment, maybe just kill is the only crime that gets a worse punishment that anything that could be attached remotely the label of child porn, even if there was no minor involved at all.
I wonder what the "suspicious" links were. If they were in a bunch of other porn, was it something like "Hot teen action" (could still be legal if 18/19), "barely legals", "schoolgirl" porn (which could mean uniforms/dressup, possibly college), small-tit porn, etc..
If it was saying "underage girlz 11yr old" then it's pretty obvious, but "suspicious" doesn't seem to mean definitely KP.
Long long ago when I still used windows+IE, I seem to remember various sites which somehow managed to add things to my favs as well, even though I hadn't chosen to do so. So who knows.
Next, can we get courts to consider deleted files, snippets, or unexpected objects in an archive, or on a FTP server, downloaded (but never reviewed) not to be possessed next?
In particular, if some unknown user uploads an illegal file to a public FTP server's public-writable uploads directory (for whatever reason), and the FTP server operator deletes the file, when another FTP server reports it to them, or when reviewing to move from new uploads dir to a suitable place. The FTP server operator, and the person who reported the incident ought to be indemnified, assuming they either didn't know about, or fully destroyed the object.
I'd say and they 'reported the incident to authorities', but that is difficult to do, because authorities don't provide a standard online form for uploading suspicious objects and reporting circumstances behind them -----
also reporting to authorities in itself would seem to be so dangerous to the reporting person legally, since the reporter and possibly other entities did come to handle the illegal file accidentally in that case -- (risk of causing themselves to be severely inconvenienced by being subject to investigation themselves), that they should be held blameless even if they do not report to authorities out of fear.
I can't believe that this is the kind of activity you advocate. Clearly the legal line on this stuff has been moving the wrong way for a long time, and laws regarding child porn are *way* off the mark.
Have you even thought about blind people? We should lock up anyone who hears, touches, smells, tastes, or sees children. Don't forget people who say child-like things or try to attract children (ice cream men, for instance). Don't even get me started on five-year-old girls who kiss five-year-old boys. They've clearly demonstrated an affinity for minors.
Kidding aside, perhaps "taste" is a bit far.
Agreed. Please log-in and reply with your name and postal address so that I may notify the appropriate authorities...
Requiem for the American Dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APlx9btTn8
"Child Pornography is the only crime that is illegal to look at"
"If you are a parent, you probably don't want to hear this but [...] statistically, no one wants to fuck your kid. Now or ever! [...]. You want to think your kid is the reason all those pedophiles are there waiting in position [...] if you wanted your kid to get fucked just to prove how ultrafuckable that kid is you probably couldn't make it happen. If you put him up as bait dressed in a catholic school skirt jumping on a pogo stick with no underwear [...] he would still probably graduate a virgin, and you would look like an asshole."
Best. Comedy. Ever (The great 4: Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Doug Stanhope)
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
with ubuntu there is a directory called .thumbnails and in there another one called normal. currently on my netbook there are just under 3000 thumbnails some of which are images i recognise as having viewed them some are images of well known people, some from slashdot , facebook and there are photo's of people i know but have never seen before.
I think theres nothing there to worry about but would hate to think anything in that directory could be used as evidence against me of anything.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Actually, there's way too many reasons something could be in your car without your knowledge. This would include having given someone a ride, having the car detailed, serviced, etc, ever having the door unlocked while you're not there (such as in your driveway), etc. It could even extend to not personally detailing the car. It could have been there since the car was MADE depending on where it was.
It's even questionable if your fingerprints are found ON THE BAG. For example, perhaps you picked it up and threw it at a friend telling him to never bring that shit into your car again (but obviously he ignored you).
Naturally, prosecutors don't want possession to have to be willful, but it's the only way to avoid convicting innocents.
Of course, we COULD make possession laws absolute, but that would technically mean anyone connected with an arrest should also be tried since whatever the contraband was, it was at some time in their possession and in their haste to be more zero tolerant than the next guy, our legislators frequently forget to enumerate any exceptions.
Probably for the same reason crusaders against adulterers and homosexuals are often caught doing those very acts. The more vocal someone is against something, it's because they're trying to prove they're against it.
In this case, I think someone has a deep, dark secret fantasy of being someone's bitch.
I searched around just for fun and I guess you could use this: http://www.iwf.org.uk/reporting.htm There are other websites too like https://secure.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/CybertipServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US And of course, if you really are paranoid, you could fill these forms through a proxy.
> and that the names of certain websites indicate the content of their images.
Contrary to what one might expect, there were no goats at goatse.cx.
The issue isn't just one of "gateway habit" escalation. Nor is it just one of "abuse by proxy."
A child is hurt when child abuse happens. Most child porn, not counting teen self- or boyfriend-cell-phone stuff, are photos of child abuse in progress.
While passing those pictures around may or may not cause that particular child any further harm ("abuse by proxy"),* it generally does create a market for child pornography. In the aggregate, spread over all the people who view child pornography, this increases the chances that a child who would have otherwise been un-photographed or perhaps even un-molested will be victimized and that a child who is already a victim of being turned into a child porn "star" will have more photographs taken of her.
To put it another way, if by magic people stopped viewing child pornography for a year, you would see a decrease in the number of photos taken and a decrease in child molestation, even ignoring any possible "escalation" effect that other Slashdot contributors are suggesting.
By the way, I'm not speaking just of a dollars-and-sense marketplace, although there is no doubt some of that also based on the number of people stupid enough to use credit cards to buy k1dd13 pr0n. There is no doubt some "in kind" "your kid's picture for my kid's picture" trading and also some people who just do it for their own ego boost. Take away the ego boost, and the person may find some other way to boost his ego, hopefully a way that doesn't involve showing the world how he abused a kid.
*Sometimes when a child or grown-child-abuse realizes or is told her photos are "out there" it causes additional trauma, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a child or grown-child-abuse victim finds out about a particular person viewing pictures of old photos, it causes additional trauma, sometimes it doesn't.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"see 18 U.S.C. 2251, 2252, 2252A)." ... except this case is in Canada which actually makes a distinction between viewing and possessing. The charge here was "possessing", and the criteria for "possessing" were not met.
I do have to wonder whether or not it's possible for them to raise exactly that charge, no matter the result of this one?
Are you sure? You're basically saying it's legal in the US to surf child porn as long as you don't store it? I'm not really buying that, but hey, you might be right.
I'm saying that in Canada, where this case occurred, there seems to be a distinction made between "accessing" and "possessing" - and the charge here is "possessing". Were the charge 'accessing' perhaps the result would have been different - though IANAL in either country, so this is just based on a layman's reading of the relevant code.
Accessing CP is a crime in Canada. It's even in the next subsection Criminal Code (163.1(4.1))!
Accessing child pornography
(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-4.html#codese:163_1-ss:_4_1_
There's no need to get all butthurt over prison rape. Oh wait, there is!
Indeed - it's nice to see a country using a more sensible definition of access versus possession, rather than one based on computer technicality.
The UK goes in completely the opposite direction however - the courts ruled that downloading not only counts as possession, but it counts as making child porn. And copy constitutes "making" it. So now we have the media talking about people being arrested for making child porn, with most people assuming that means the actual production, but in many cases that may be the same as downloading. (I'm not bothered if downloading is illegal, but it's nonsense to try to twist the terms - and anyhow, if downloading child porn is so obviously wrong, why do they have to pretend that they were making instead?)
A lot of people NEED someone to hate.
In the US, pedophiles are the only people left that you can hate without offending someone. We don't allow antisemitism, racism, hatred of ethnic minorities, homophobia etc. etc. etc.
It's gonna be interesting in Europe. Since Mohammad was a pedophile I suppose they may have to give up hating pedophiles, but don't worry, they're already going back to hating Jews as a backup.
Every time someone says "Every time someone crusades against X, I think they must secretly like X", I think they must one of those people who likes to crusades against some Y yet secretly likes Y. (Y may or may not be the same as X.)
In fact, maybe I should start a crusade over this.
Entering someone's home and seizing their computer, their spouse's computer, video tapes and other gear with a crappy warrant isn't a "technicality", it's a grave breach of a citizen's right to privacy and the security of his person. So grave, in fact, that it's more important to let guilty people go (even people guilty of murder, treason, and possessing CP) if the State enters your home without "reasonable probable grounds".
Freedom is not a technicality.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
This is not actually true. Canada and the U.S. (like most/all other British common law countries) actually do have the same common law mens rea requirements for conviction of most crimes. State laws, of course, can vary in a multitude of ways but take, for example, the Model Penal Code's treatment of possession (adopted in many states):
Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.
In an MPC state, therefore, there would have to be evidence presented that you knew that the drugs were there in order to be convicted in the scenario you lay out. Of course, that doesn't always stop an overzealous cop from arresting you under those circumstances, but that is not so much a commentary on the content of our laws as on the training of our police force.
caritj.org
Quite frankly if your getting off on pictures/videos of sex that doesn't involve the consent of everyone involved you deserve to be locked away for a very long time.
oh ok, just so long as you foot the 5-figure annual cost to keep someone imprisoned, I'm cool with it. Do you want to make monthly payments of $1800 or pay $11 000 every 6 months? Or do you want to rethink your stance on thought crimes?
who exactly is Canada helping by putting this person in jail?
FTFY.
Because laws can be written too narrowly. Realize that several number of people can stop a bad conviction--a police officer, a prosecutor, and sometimes a judge. But sometimes the law is written narrowly, and a judge may think the law shouldn't be what it is, but he still has to follow it as written, in most cases. (Occasionally he gets to write it.) Sometimes he finds a way out of it, and sometimes he gets it wrong. But if he feels his hands are tied by the law, and a jury feels their hands are tied by the law, then you bad convictions until the legislature gets the law changed.
You don't explain the whole tech. You figure out the part that matters and explain it very simply, possibly by analogy. Half the job of a lawyer is writing complex things simply. (The other half is writing simple things complexly.)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I've had objectionable stuff pop up through ad-blockers before when randomly surfing as well that I'd like to report (not even sure if it was legit or not, closed windows fast) ... but haven't, for that very fear. Sad, but what can you do?
Just save those URLs for planting on politicians' computers.
Can you explain any legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle?
Sorry.. let me revise my statement:
Can you explain any plausible legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle?
All of those bullet points of yours are extremely unlikely situations, and it makes sense that you would be expected to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary explanations.
A judge who knows about computers - that's impressive.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
gknoy is correct but is incomplete.
The "market" is not just driven by money, it is also driven by "I'll give you mine if you'll give me yours" and "I'll give everyone mine because knowing thousands of people appreciate my kid the same way I do makes me feel good" ego reasons.
Cut out all 3 of these reasons and the market dries up, and less is produced. Yes, you will still have some produced for self-use and you will still have some produced and published by people who don't realize nobody is out there looking at it.
Regarding "gateway habit" - there are some who argue that using child porn is a gateway habit. There are also those who argue the opposite, that if someone did not have pictures to look at, he might go after a real child. Both arguments are probably true to some extent, but I have no clue what the "net" effect is. My strong hunch is that for every thousand men who view child porn regularly, the number who go on to hurt kids is higher than the number who would have hurt a kid but for the ability to satisfy their desires through pictures. However, I haven't seen any research one way or the other.
Regarding blame-shifting: If I knowingly walk down a seedy part of town known for street-robberies when it is not necessary to do so, and I'm wearing a Rolex and I'm a scrawny guy who looks like he doesn't belong, and I get robbed, here's how the blame goes: The assailant is 100% responsible. He gets the same punishment as if he robbed me in a "safe" part of town. I am also partially responsible for being stupid, and my friends and family will rightly chastise me for being an idiot. Note that my stupidity, carelessness, or other conscious choice to put myself at unnecessarily increased risk, does not in any manner reduce the culpability of the perpetrator, and it should in now way reduce his sentence.
Think of it another way: If I am a sober adult without a driver's license and I knowingly get into a car with an intoxicated driver and get hurt in a wreck that's his fault, it's all his fault but partially mine. He's 100% guilty but my friends have the right to ask me "what were you thinking???" and call me an idiot for it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The "market" is not just driven by money, it is also driven by "I'll give you mine if you'll give me yours" and "I'll give everyone mine because knowing thousands of people appreciate my kid the same way I do makes me feel good" ego reasons.
Cut out all 3 of these reasons and the market dries up, and less is produced. Yes, you will still have some produced for self-use and you will still have some produced and published by people who don't realize nobody is out there looking at it.
The problem with this statement is that there would still be just as much child abuse . Unless you're saying that it's all fine as long as we don't know about it, which does seem to be the prevailing attitude.
I'm proud to say that I am a personal friend of one of the non-dissenting judges, and you can be sure that I will congratulate him for his cluefulness in what constitutes a cache.
I'm not sure why you omitted that. You might not have kept up on the criminal code. See Bill C-2, 2004.
Laws don't apply retroactively. In the article it states the charges were laid in 2003.
If the demand for child porn goes down, SOME of the would-be porn stars will still be abused, just not photographed.
However, some, notably the commercial-grade "stars" that are being abused for the purposes of filming and making money off of said filming may escape unharmed. Sadly, many of those same girls are probably being pimped out, and eliminating the porn market won't help them. But it may help a few.
It will also help those girls and boys who would otherwise grow up with their childhood forced-acting scattered all over the world. NOT having your picture scattered all over the world is one less thing to worry about as an adult, and Lord knows these child-abuse victims have enough stress in their lives.
Oh, and whether we know about it or not, child abuse is not fine.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Correct, as I've (more or less) said in follow-up replies to my own. I say "the law" -- meaning "the law as applies to this case". (ANd no IANAL, just doing some reading...)
I am always glad when people make the right decisions. Makes be happy I live in Canada.
Now we just have to kill that Copyright bill again.Lets go!
Tomayto, Tomahto
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.