NY Ruling Distinguishes Downloading, Viewing Child Pornography

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NY Ruling Distinguishes Downloading, Viewing Child Pornography

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 10, 2012 @01:29AM from the now-how-will-we-blackmail-people? dept.

bs0d3 writes "According to a recent ruling in New York state, from Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, 'Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law. Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen.' Which means under New York state law, creating, and possessing child pornography is illegal; the lawmakers never specifically said that merely viewing it is a crime. The prosecution mentioned that the images were saved on his hard drive via the browser cache. However the court ruled that this was not the same as having a saved image. This means that people from New York state who click the wrong link by accident will no longer face serious jail time and a lifetime of registering as a sex offender. People will be able to report what they've found to the police who can then go after the source of the child porn, instead of someone who was merely browsing the internet." An MSNBC article summarizes the case, and offers this pithy summary: "The decision rests on whether accessing and viewing something on the Internet is the same as possessing it, and whether possessing it means you had to procure it. In essence, the court said no to the first question and yes to the second."

Of the defendant in the case which sparked the ruling, though, reader concertina226 asks "Errr... just because he didn't download the pictures, how does this make it okay? He's still accessing child porn! "

370 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fp by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:30 · Score: -1

Fap fap fap
1. Re:Fp by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:00 · Score: -1
  
  fap fap fap
2. Re:Fp by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:03 · Score: -1
  
  fap fap fap fap
3. Re:Fp by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  fap fap fap fap fap
  
  Pedobear approves this message, brought to you by the campaign for Pedobear 2012.
Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by ccguy · 2012-05-10 01:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm glad. I've never have that in my screen but it's pure luck.

I've seen other people personal information just because it "appeared" on my screen (looking for a file but downloaded something else, etc) and getting in trouble just because I saw it on my monitor seems rather unfair...
1. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by dmbasso · 2012-05-10 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, now it is possible for a "virus" to serve cached images on a p2p network... quite convenient for the pervs.
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
2. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by TheMeuge · 2012-05-10 01:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Despite what the "tough on crime" short-sighted idiots would say, this is not only a necessary decision, but a really long-time-coming one. Considering how many links people click on over the course of the day, with hardly any idea (implicitly or explicitly) of what's going to be found on the other side, there have been many unintentional violations of the current law. Furthermore, I wonder how many people who surfed the internet for legal (consentual, adult) pornography, have seen what looked like child porn at one time or another. But under current law, no matter how disgusted you may have been, or how quickly you closed the page, you were guilty by definition. Furthermore, if you reported what you saw, you not only were guilty, but you had confessed as well. This was akin to the UK case where a man found a shotgun that was thrown into his garden from a passing vehicle, and turned it into the police, only to be jailed for weapons possession, since he was "in possession" of it during the course of bringing it to the police station.
  This is an important decision for internet safety, and should be applauded, and will hopefully serve as precedent for cases outside of New York as well, since the practice of trawling the browser cache for suspect images is fairly prevalent. And I have to say - I doubt that anyone who intentionally views child pornography would be that obvious, unless they were stupid. And if they were that stupid, there'd be plenty of other "downloaded" evidence all over the place. In short, the draconian law as it stands right now is simply not necessary for prosecution of real purveyors of child porn, and likely served only to trawl for victims.
3. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I was once browsing a Tumblr porn blog, and came across something that looked very much like child porn. After leaving the page and scrubbing my eyes out, I cleared the browser cache and history and did everything I could to scrub every trace of those bytes from my machine.
  I loathe child porn, and people who make it and enjoy it should definitely be punished. But that intense fear I felt that the authorities might come after me because my browser accidentally downloaded some? I shouldn't have to feel that. This ruling is a very good thing.
4. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Penguinisto · 2012-05-10 02:20 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I was thinking the same thing, though usually most folks know up-front that if you didn't actively seek and intentionally download it, you're not to blame.
  I remember having to explain similar arguments a long time ago - not about CP, but about porn in general. A student had mis-typed a link in class, and suddenly got bombarded with pr0n - back in the days when pop-ups were all the rage. I merely turned off the monitor and killed power to the machine, then explained what can happen in such cases, but a young lady complained about the student to the school superintendent nonetheless.
  They were ready to lynch the kid over it, and it took three hours to explain to these bureaucrats how such things can be accidental. I finally heaved a sigh, and told them to turn on a machine and "go to the White House's website at whitehouse dot com". They expected to find the President, but as you may have guessed, found the expected pr0n - this was before the meme became popular knowledge. Enough of the administrators got clued in by then to keep the kid from getting slammed.
  So yeah... sometimes shit happens, and I can see it happening in a bad way for some slob who stumbles over the keyboard the wrong way. That's why I'm glad someone in the legal system is finally showing some sense.
  Someone who systematically stores a shitload of CP on his hard drive and has a demonstrable history of actively seeking the shit out both on and offline? Nail 'em to the wall. Someone that accidentally stumbles into the wrong website on the other hand should never see the inside of a courtroom.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
5. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Defenestrar · 2012-05-10 02:23 · Score: 2
  
  Considering how many links people click on over the course of the day, with hardly any idea (implicitly or explicitly) of what's going to be found on the other side...
  Leaving intentional clicks to unknown locations aside, it hasn't been that long since it's been reasonably easy to be free of those endless rapidly spawning popups or the pop-up viruses installed by a drive-by. Without a law like this, how many little-old ladies would we have had to throw in prison under a strict per-decision interpretation for calling in the horrible things on their computer.
6. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by ZorinLynx · 2012-05-10 02:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I've always found it disgusting how quick school administrators are to ruin a kid's life over innocent mistakes.
  Bring a multitool that happens to have a blade to school? Call the police. Arrest them, rather than just confiscate the device and send it home to parents.
  Draw a movie action scene where some guy is blowing people away with a machine gun? OH NOS HE MIGHT DO IT FOR REAL. Call the cops. Suspend him. Ruin him psychologically for being creative!
  It's gotten way beyond control. Stuff that would have gotten a kid suspended or detention when I was in school 20 years ago is getting them thrown in jail, expelled or placed into psychiatric care these days. It's no wonder our kids are growing up not-quite-centered. Sigh.
7. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 02:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This decision is in the state of NY and based upon their state law, which apparently requires possession. The federal law is a bit different however. 18 USC 2252A (a)(5)(B) criminalizes someone who "knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography...". So, under federal law, access with intent to view doesn't require possession, but it does require knowledge and intent. The federal law also provides for an affirmative defense for this section if you possessed less than three images and immediately destroyed them.
8. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by SpanglerIsAGod · 2012-05-10 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Pure luck is certainly part of it. Especially when you consider that not all countries set the age of consent at 18. It is quite possible to be out searching for proper porn and come across a foreign site containing a nude 17 year old; suddenly you are a pedo.
  
  --
  War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
9. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cpu6502 · 2012-05-10 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  >>>I've never have that in my screen but it's pure luck.
  Are you sure?
  Some of these stupid laws would arrest you for looking at a merely nude image of a teenager, so if you've ever visited a nudist website, or seen images of Brroke Shields & other starlets nude, then you could be prosecuted under these laws.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
10. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by jamstar7 · 2012-05-10 02:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Great in theory, but how many 'mundanes' know to clear their browser cache? How many of them know how to clear their cache? You could slide over 3 or more kiddie porn images in 4 or 5 years no problem, and by the Fed statute, still be prosecutable.
  
  I for one applaud the New York ruling, it stops the police from going for a quick slamdunk 'conviction' (hey, how much easier can it get when the 'criminal' calls you up and reports finding this shit?) and forces them to go after the source.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
11. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cpu6502 · 2012-05-10 02:49 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  >>>it took three hours to explain to these bureaucrats how such things can be accidental
  Wow.
  The leaders of the school are dumber than the kids they are not teaching.
  But I disagree with you that people should be arrested for possessing images of kiddie porn, just as they should not be arrested for images of murder victims, or car accidents, or a pile of cocaine. The holder of the image is Not the guilty person who committed the crime.
  And I especially do not think people should be arrested for comics of kids, because there is no victim. No victim == no rights have been infringed. (Of course I'm sure you disagree, just as you probably want to force everyone to attend church weekly.)
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
12. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tnk1 · 2012-05-10 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Thing with all this is, I doubt that you're ever going to stop pervs completely. In fact, if someone is a perv, that's their own problem. It's only when they can actually hurt children where there is a problem.
  If this data is being passed freely over p2p networks, no one is turning it into a business and making money off it. The fact is, stopping *free* dispersion of this material over the Internet isn't going to stop the source of it, and the source is where the children are being hurt. I suppose you could say that seeing that sort of thing encourages certain behavior, but I don't know that is true. And if some perv stays at home and looks at that instead of using their free time stalking some child at a school or something, it could have an unintended benefit.
  Point being, simply allowing pervs to maybe see some free porn that has already been made is definitely not worth turning an innocent person into a felon sex offender because they clicked on the wrong page because it doesn't help a single child.
13. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  It is at least debatable as to whether viewing free child porn should be legal. You're not abusing anyone, you're not paying so not helping the child abusers, it may help to stop some people abusing children, and you don't get into the quagmire about when a cartoon depiction turns from legal to illegal because it becomes "too realistic".
14. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  So, under federal law, access with intent to view doesn't require possession, but it does require knowledge and intent.
  I'm wondering how they go about proving "intent to view".
15. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 03:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I for one applaud the New York ruling, it stops the police from going for a quick slamdunk 'conviction' (hey, how much easier can it get when the 'criminal' calls you up and reports finding this shit?) and forces them to go after the source.
  I agree with your sentiment, but I think you're missing some important details here. First, if you call the cops and report that you have it, then you obviously are aware of your possession and would not be helped in the least by this ruling. Secondly, the NY law is crafted such that possession = guilty. The only affirmative defense provided is that you thought the person was not a minor; good luck with that one. The law is pretty simple:
  A person is guilty of possessing a sexual performance by a child when, knowing the character and content thereof, he knowingly has in his possession or control any performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than sixteen years of age.
  There is no element of intent involved. If you are aware that you posses CP, you have broken the law. Kent was able to get a handful of the approximately 150 counts dismissed because they didn't prove that he was aware that he possessed the images found in his browser cache.
16. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by networkBoy · 2012-05-10 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  I think if the link you followed said something like "barely legal 18 year olds" then your intent was for that and if you saw CP it was not your intent to view it.
  OTOH if you followed a link that was "(n18) year old getting it on with older man" your intent was for CP.
  If you have the images still in your cache then you should also have the referring page in there I would think.
  Also, if you save the images explicitly in another folder I would have to think that shows intent quite nicely (I realize that the law does not dictate you have to save the images, but I think many people do save some or all of their "favorites"?)
  -nB
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
17. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Digital+Vomit · 2012-05-10 03:10 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's possible that the free distribution of existing child porn over the internet is probably the best thing that could happen (short of a cure) re: the problem of pedophilia. With its ease of accessibility, supply becomes high, resulting in, one would guess, a reduced chance for someone afflicted with pedophilia to use actual children to satisfy his desires, much in the same way that "normal" internet porn may reduce the occurrence of rape.
  What pedophiles need is help, especially when evidence proves that some pedophilic urges are caused by physical problems and can be cured by surgery . (I'm not saying all pedophilia has physical causes; it seems obvious that much of it is caused by psychological problems during adolescent development)
  
  --
  Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
18. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  I agree but you're off-base assuming this ruling relates at all to your point. The court simply ruled that the NY law under which Kent was convicted requires possession and that something he didn't know he had could hardly be considered. This eliminated a handful of counts from the approximately 150 initially brought forth. The NY law is shit - it doesn't have any provisions for intent and it doesn't address viewing. If you have CP, then you are guilty. FWIY, the federal law attempts to do a better job; it addresses accessing with intent to view and requires knowledge of what you're doing.
19. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  The wide availabilty of gay porn on the internet hasn't curbed gay marriage. Quite the opposite, in fact: As people stop being shocked by goatse, lemon party, etc, the thought of two men butt fucking each other starts seeming normal. I suspect prime-time broadcast tv will show 2 men ass-to-mouth 69ing each other within 5 years.
20. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 03:28 · Score: 2
  
  What pedophiles need is help, especially when evidence proves that some pedophilic urges are caused by physical problems and can be cured by surgery.
  So we're lobotomizing people again, eh? Just like they tried to "cure" homosexuals and other perceived "deviants" back in the 1950s.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
21. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  I cleared the browser cache and history and did everything I could to scrub every trace of those bytes from my machine.
  Turn off your browser cache and history. Every browser nowadays has a "private" mode that temporarily disables these features, which you should always use when browsing any sort of sketchy sites. Tor is also useful to mask your IP.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
22. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Theophany · 2012-05-10 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  They did that already. It was called 'Hannity and Colmes.' No prizes for guessing who was the 'giver' and who was the 'taker'...
23. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by gmack · 2012-05-10 04:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Years ago (my first full time job) I got a panicked call from the company head of sales. One of our clients thought it would be funny to send our sales guy a link that opened 10 child porn sits and each side opened another 10 and before he knew it his computer was overloading and deep into swap with hundreds of child porn windows. I walked in, figured I would rather deal with a broken windows 2000 install than any amount of viewing child porn and pulled the power cord from the machine.
  I would have no problem with arresting everyone who views child porn if we could somehow guarantee that each person arrested willingly went with the intent to view it but is far too easy for some other jerk to be the reason for viewing child porn for simple viewing to be a crime.
24. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  I once had something similar happen and felt it was so obviously KP that I had to report it. I went through a Federal site that was anonymous. I was perhaps naive to trust that; but it was 10 years ago and nothing came of it. I don't know if they were busted or not. There was one other time when it happened and I had no idea how to report it. That one was worse... keep trying to tell yourself it was just a thin little person who shaved; but beyond a certain point that's just not possible because people with dwarfism tend to have squat proprtions... dammit. stinks just thinking about it.
25. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by MikeBabcock · 2012-05-10 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't confuse the people who are pro sexual freedom but not sexual freedom. Christians had a line in the sand and got in trouble for it, now the liberals have their own line in the sand ... what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children? Nothing. The 'normalcy' defense has been used over and over to defend gay rights but its irrelevant to discussing pedos for some reason.
  For the record, I defend neither group; I'm a straight married white dude who doesn't deserve an opinion, but I do find the whole situation ironic.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
26. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Sesostris+III · 2012-05-10 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad. I've never have that in my screen but it's pure luck.
  Try the following link (WARNING - CONTAINS AUTHENTIC HONEST-TO-GOODNESS CHILD PORN!!!!!):
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer_Controversy
  
  OK, yes, I know it is Wikipeda, and I know the "image" is from the 70s (I remember seeing the album in the 70s in a record store), yet, as the article states, it could be (and is) considered indecent. The article itself goes into more details.
  
  Oh, and I doubt anyone will be "done" for viewing it, but then IANAL!
  
  --
  You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
27. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Right, because they have clearly been showing a man and a woman ass-to-mouth 69ing each other on prime-time broadcast TV for years now.
  Oh wait they haven't, they aren't going to magically and arbitrarily change the rules for homosexuals, and your argument makes no sense because your an idiotic troll. I sincerely hope you have a good day and get some direly needed mental help.
28. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by MikeBabcock · 2012-05-10 04:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The fact that the USA is willing to put people in jail for viewing comics from other countries containing minors is beyond my comprehension. There was a case in Australia too, involving a Simpsons character or two ... its crazy. I'm against killing people, and think eating brains is disgusting, but I love a good zombie movie. Why is artistic depiction with no harm wrong exactly? For some logical reason that isn't a puritanical rant that is ...
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
29. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tompaulco · 2012-05-10 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Some of these stupid laws would arrest you for looking at a merely nude image of a teenager,
  Not to mention that it doesn't matter how old someone looks, if they are only 17 and 364/365ths, then you go to jail. Also, in some jurisdictions, even if a girl is of legal age, but is dressed up like a schoolgirl or has pigtails, then you go to jail. Or if the image is a cartoon of a someone that at least someone might say is under 18, then you go to jail.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
30. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  There is no element of intent involved. If you are aware that you posses CP, you have broken the law. Kent was able to get a handful of the approximately 150 counts dismissed because they didn't prove that he was aware that he possessed the images found in his browser cache.
  I don't think that's quite right. It was not that he did not know he possessed them, it was that he did not posses them even though they were in his browser cache
  The key to this decision is the difference between having something on one's property and possessing it. For example, lets say you own a house on a big wooded lot. If I were to park my car on some out-of-the-way part of that lot, it would not instantly become your posession. This is true even if you are aware that it is on your property. It is an abandoned car. It could be considered your possession only if you excercise control over it which might include such things as having the keys, driving it, or moving it into your garage.
  If I understand this ruling, having an image in one's browser cache is not posession even if one knows it must be there. This decision is the natural consequence of more computer literate judges. For some time prosecuters have been able to imposing on the courts with reasoning such as: He had the images on his hard drive. A hard drive is a container. He put them in this container. Theirfore he possessed them.
  What has happened here is the judges now understand what a browser cache is: a temporary storage area over which users do not ordinarily excercise control. It may be a storage container in a technical sense, but not in a legal sense. The fact that a document or an image is in the cache does not indicate that the computer's user is trying to keep it. The judges understand that something which would not be considered a crime if done using old technology should not accidently become a crime when committed using a new technology just because of some obscure technical detail of how the new technology works.
  The difference between viewing pornography on the Internet and possessing pornography may be illustrated this way: Suppose that word gets around a school that "there is a dirty picture in the third stall in the boy's room" and some of the boys make excuses to go and look. They do not become possessors of the picture. But one could become a possessor by taking the picture down, taking it home, and hiding it under his matress. And, if we assume (for purposes of argument) that what the boys did was wrong, what the last boy did was more wrong.
  Of course, it may be that with the Internet is no longer necessary to possess child pornography it in order to view it regularly and repeatedly. In that case, the legislature may have to decide what level of repeated viewing incures the same guilt as keeping it. But this decision has to be made by the legislature, not by calling viewing possession. If we let prosecuters reshape the law by calling viewing possession than the man who in the course of half an hour one night viewed 10 pornographic pictures of children is just as guilty as the one who has 10 prints of pornographic pictures of children hidden under his matress.
31. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  So, under federal law, access with intent to view doesn't require possession, but it does require knowledge and intent.
  I'm wondering how they go about proving "intent to view".
  I imagine "intent to view" means "intent to use as pornography". There are other reasons for possesing pornography: as evidence, as a source of pulp for paper making, etc.
32. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Did you read it? He wasn't lobotomized, a tumor was causing pressure and was removed. Subsequently he scored high on cognitive tests, not at all similar to a lobotomized patient.
33. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by blueg3 · 2012-05-10 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Right -- it requires either possession or intent. Usually demonstrating intent boils down to something similar to what the NY judge ruled. Just having evidence of the computer having accessed it at some point in time is insufficient; you need a pattern of use sufficient to convince a jury that the suspect knew what he was after and was a "repeat customer".
  Of course, in the majority of these cases, it's not really all that difficult. Most of these guys have directories on their desktop labelled "Lolita" with 20 GB of carefully organized images in it.
34. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cdrguru · 2012-05-10 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  THIS IS NOT A DECISION. At most it is an affirmation.
  I am not aware of any jurisdiction that will prosecute someone for the contents of their browser cache. Every law enforcement organization that I have had contact with (quite a number ...) has confirmed this. If someone's computer is being examined and all they find are images in the browser cache, prosecution does not go forward. Period.
  The number of people that believe they can be prosecuted on the basis of their browser cache is incredible nonetheless. I have never heard of such a case and doubt there has ever been such a prosecution. There are huge problems with such a thing, starting with there not being any indication of intent.
  So again, this is not a "decision". There is no jurisdiction in the US and unlikely to be one outside the US where such a prosecution has ever taken place. Only a complete fool of a prosecutor would even file a case based on browser cache alone as there are a large number of defenses that would certainly be used.
35. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by V-similitude · 2012-05-10 04:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Most (all?) private modes don't actually turn off the cache (that's usually rather impractical), they just clear it out when you're done with the session. However, that means the files did exist on your computer at some point, and could theoretically be found with an undelete program. I don't know of any browsers that run purely in RAM, but probably one exists somewhere (or would be interesting to create).
36. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by hairyfeet · 2012-05-10 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually anybody who has cleaned lots of infected PCs frankly has already seen it thanks to the "clickjack" bugs and their variants. I've seen plenty of those bugs that will just spray the screen with tons of sleazy topsites to get their clicks up and a lot of those thumbnails on those topsites? Fucking gross.
  This is just common sense because one can see something on the net they are not hunting for. How many here have been Rickrolled? two girls? Hell there was a sick troll that hung around HERE a few years back that would put links to CP images as his version of a Rickroll just to show he didn't worry about shit with his "7 proxies". Whether those that like the red scare we have going on around CP accept it or not there are plenty of easy ways to end up seeing something you REALLY didn't want to see. I know I sure as hell didn't click on a Lemon party or Tubgirl link on purpose, thanks.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
37. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cdrguru · 2012-05-10 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  From a considerable amount of contact with folks investigating child porn cases - people that are working on seized computers and media - I cannot believe there has ever been a federal case filed based solely on the content of the browser cache. This would not show any intent whatsoever, which is critical. Such a case would be tossed out very quickly and the defense would be gloating very publicly about their "win".
  Now, if you save a picture on a DVD you have just shown intent. And I hear plenty about those cases considering the business I am in.
38. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Do you believe you should be allowed to posses stolen goods? You may not have stolen them, you did not harm the owner directly. You might not even have bought them from the thief. But society still deems this as wrong, or at least I hope it does. Pictures of abuse are abuse themselves to the victim. Do you really want to be raped (obviously not), but then have pictures of you legally passed around? Murder victims should also be given some dignity. Piles of cocaine, not so much, but hopefully the police have some tools available to at least be able to question you to determine where the picture might have been taken.
  Passing around/possessing pictures of some child your buddy took should be a crime. The problem is that the innocent (intent wise) are shafted by unreasonable judgments and minimum sentences such that if you have found offending images, there are harsh personal consequences for trying to do the right thing. To me, saving the images I think are offending and then forwarding them with the link to authorities would be the right thing, and I would would do so regardless of the NYC laws past or present. How else can the perpetrators be caught?
39. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Given most modern OS virtual memory practices, even a program which kept everything in RAM could potentially be swapped out to disk. Granted, there are factors which could help mitigate this, such as encrypted swap.
40. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by s73v3r · 2012-05-10 05:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children?
  I guess it's that most same sex pairings are between consenting adults, whereas children often are not able to give consent for such things.
41. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  "What pedophiles need is help,"
  What a pedophile needs is a bullet to the head.
42. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-10 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Copying is not theft.
43. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-10 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  and enjoy it
  Going after people who look at pictures is a complete waste of time. Can't go after the ones who actually make it? Such a shame.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
44. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by guises · 2012-05-10 05:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children?
  I guess it's that most same sex pairings are between consenting adults, whereas children often are not able to give consent for such things.
  He said preferring, not executing. There certainly is a societal problem with non-consensual sex. Wanting non-consensual sex however, is purely a personal problem. As is wanting anything that you can't have.
  
  I don't know what this "line in sand" is that he's talking about though. I'm pretty liberal and would happily defend homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles, polygamists... almost any others that you could name. But not rapists. Is that my line? Rape? I don't anticipate getting in trouble for that.
  
  (Don't think this is a free pass for you zoophiles - I'm not okay with animal rape either.)
45. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Why is it OK to kill an animal, but not have sex with it?
46. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Bring a multitool that happens to have a blade to school? Call the police. Arrest them, rather than just confiscate the device and send it home to parents.
  Surprisingly enough, this happened to me. Rather than calling the police, they simply told me to give it to the principal and have my mom pick it up after school.
  Even as a kid, I was surprised by that. In my case, bringing it was a mere accident. I accidentally left it in my winter coat pocket (since I was allowed to use it at home), and when I was running on the playground, it fell out and some other kid told on me.
  Although, instead of giving it to the principal, I silently put it back in my backpack... They decided not to escort me there.
47. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by ustolemyname · 2012-05-10 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children?
  I guess it's that most same sex pairings are between consenting adults, whereas children often are not allowed to give consent for such things.
  FTFY
48. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out. I keep my cache set at 0B all the time so I've never noticed the cache was still enabled when private browsing. (And I do encrypt swap.)
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
49. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-10 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Do you believe you should be allowed to posses stolen goods?
  Uh... in that case, someone would have had to have their goods stolen. Legally, I think the goods should still be theirs even if someone bought them from the original thief. Therefore, if the goods are found, I think they should be returned.
  
  Pictures of abuse are abuse themselves to the victim.
  I disagree. I don't think someone masturbating to a picture hurts anyone. Once the pictures are out there, I think it's a complete waste of time, manpower, and taxpayer dollars trying to track down people merely looking at them. Go after the people who actually raped the child.
  
  Murder victims should also be given some dignity.
  I think that's even more foolish; they're dead, and therefore can't even be emotionally damaged by the pictures. You can't give them "dignity." They're simply gone, and there's no point to such a thing. If the family is offended, that's too bad.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
50. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by serviscope_minor · 2012-05-10 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Don't think this is a free pass for you zoophiles - I'm not okay with animal rape either.
  Are you happy to slaughter them and consume their flesh? Do you always buy free range produce? Do you prevent animals having sex with each other since its not consensual? Is a dog consenting when it tries to hump your leg?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
51. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · 2012-05-10 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty liberal and would happily defend zoophiles...Don't think this is a free pass - I'm not okay with animal rape
  Eh? How does that work, exactly?
  How does one tell the difference between consensual sex with an animal, and animal rape? After the fact, and with no evidence that it wasn't consensual?
  Sure, in cases of human rape it's almost too easy... after the fact she decides it was rape and says so and even if it wasn't the guy gets canned. But an animal isn't going to testify, so how do you tell?
  It basically amounts to, you're not okay with animal rape if there are witnesses.
  
  --
  I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
52. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Up through the 1950s, they used to say that choosing to have sex with a same-sex partner demonstrated insanity and, legally speaking, insane people are considered unable to give consent, too.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
53. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't know what this "line in sand" is that he's talking about though. I'm pretty liberal and would happily defend homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles, polygamists... almost any others that you could name. But not rapists. Is that my line? Rape? I don't anticipate getting in trouble for that.
  As a voluntaryist, I take the same position. Rape is a nonconsensual act and thus has an actual victim. All of these other things are just paraphilias and, however strange, are just people's desires. Desires are inherently victimless; they're just thoughts. And thoughts only become "wrong" when they're translated into action that involves unwilling participants (victims).
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
54. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  "Lobotomy" may be a hyperbolic comparison, but that doesn't change the fact that what is being advocated is using medical science to forcibly cure people of socially unacceptable thoughts.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
55. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that's quite right. It was not that he did not know he possessed them, it was that he did not posses them even though they were in his browser cache
  That's a great theory, but it doesn't seem to match up with what the ruling actually says:
  We must consider, among other issues, the evidentiary significance of "cache files," or temporary internet files automatically created and stored on a defendant's hard drive, and the defendant's awareness of the presence of such files. We conclude that where the evidence fails to show that defendant had such awareness, the People have not met their burden of demonstrating defendant's knowing procurement or possession of those files.
  
  The difference between viewing pornography on the Internet and possessing pornography may be illustrated this way: Suppose that word gets around a school that "there is a dirty picture in the third stall in the boy's room" and some of the boys make excuses to go and look. They do not become possessors of the picture. But one could become a possessor by taking the picture down, taking it home, and hiding it under his matress. And, if we assume (for purposes of argument) that what the boys did was wrong, what the last boy did was more wrong.
  Thanks for the lesson but your analogy is off. Under NY state law, looking at that picture on the wall is not illegal (federal law is another story but not in play in this case) but taking a picture of it so you can look again without going to the stall (i.e. caching it locally) means you now possess it. But what if the kid who took the picture didn't know that he has the picture, didn't look at it again, and didn't even take it on purpose. Can he be said to possess for purpose of criminal prosecution? The court said no. Taking it home and hiding it under his mattress would be a completely different story.
  
  What has happened here is the judges now understand what a browser cache is: a temporary storage area over which users do not ordinarily excercise control. It may be a storage container in a technical sense, but not in a legal sense. The fact that a document or an image is in the cache does not indicate that the computer's user is trying to keep it. The judges understand that something which would not be considered a crime if done using old technology should not accidently become a crime when committed using a new technology just because of some obscure technical detail of how the new technology works.
  Yet in other cases where the defendant was shown to have manually deleted images from the cache and/or copied them to other locations, this same defense has failed. If you actually read the ruling (and others that I've linked in other posts in this story), you'll see that the critical issue is whether the defendant demonstrated that they were aware of the cached images.
  
  In that case, the legislature may have to decide what level of repeated viewing incures the same guilt as keeping it. But this decision has to be made by the legislature, not by calling viewing possession.
  Which is exactly what the judges said in this case. The state law speaks only to possession, unlike the federal law that wasn't used in this case. Rest assured that the NY legislature will update their law.
56. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Forcibly? The alternative in his case was prison. And regardless, the tumor would have probably progressed to the point where it would have killed him or caused permanent brain damage, so I'm reasonably certain he was willing to undergo the surgery.
57. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  "Do this or go to prison." Yes, forcibly is the appropriate adjective here.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
58. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  It really would depend on the quantity and how the attorneys presented it. Having a cache filled with months of CP and no alternate explanation for how it got there is unlikely to be looked on favorably by a judge and/or jury. Several federal cases have tried to use a similar defense (see http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/305/1193/593156/) without success, but all I've seen had evidence of the defendant manipulating the files in the cache so they really couldn't claim ignorance.
59. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  The reason it is different is because it is assumed that a child does not have the ability to consent.
60. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by guises · 2012-05-10 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  How does one tell the difference between consensual sex with an animal, and animal rape? After the fact, and with no evidence that it wasn't consensual?
  It's certainly a very difficult thing to argue legally, one way or the other. Until recently it was legal in the Netherlands unless animal suffering was involved (I think that just means injury, but I'm not a lawyer). You could also make the argument that a dog, for example, which had been raised to preform sex acts for its owner is a victim even though it may give every indication of enjoying these acts, because the dog had never really been given the opportunity to make a choice on the matter. Much like someone suffering from stockholm syndrome.
  
  However, the legal implications of acting on your desires, which are complex, are not what we were discussing.
61. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by scot4875 · 2012-05-10 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children?
  Consenting adults. Do you have trouble with this concept? Let me help you: it involves people being of legal age of majority and being able to, you know, consent legally to doing whatever they want with their genitals.
  Let me repeat: LEGAL CONSENT. Do you need it spelled out any more clearly?
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
62. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  You can always run a VM completly in RAM, or boot your OS from read-only media and work in RAM.
  You can do that with any of the popular OS's.
63. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  Except, as I said before, I'd put good money that if he was mentally cognizant of the situation, he'd have wanted the surgery for medical reasons not related to the legal reasons for it.
64. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  You know you're on Slashdot when the two things on the bottom of the "least desired experiences" list are raping children and Windows 2000.
65. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  And I especially do not think people should be arrested for comics of kids, because there is no victim. No victim == no rights have been infringed. (Of course I'm sure you disagree, just as you probably want to force everyone to attend church weekly.)
  
  -1 Making Shit Up. Seriously, nothing in GP's post implies any such feelings or beliefs, and every time you resort to making shit up like that, it just further hurts your reputation and makes you look like a whiny 2 year old.
66. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  I've got that bullet for your head right here, pedo.
67. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Unkyjar · 2012-05-10 09:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Eh? How does that work, exactly?
  
  How does one tell the difference between consensual sex with an animal, and animal rape? After the fact, and with no evidence that it wasn't consensual?
  Well, you know, you're walking around town, turn a corner into a dark alleyway and come face to face with a ram and a pig, spinning around to leave you see a horse has your only escape blocked with his bulk. They've got a hungry look in their eyes and you know you're not getting out of this unscathed. The ram slams into your chest forcing you to the ground and you just keep on telling yourself not to let them see you cry.
  Stop animal rape today. If you see something, say something or it could be your story some day.
68. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by kyrio · 2012-05-10 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Completely up-to-date non-IE browser with a completely up-to-date OS and I still got a virus from a malicious ad this morning. It was a really shitty virus that seems did nothing more than install one EXE and a startup entry, but it got installed.
69. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tnk1 · 2012-05-10 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children?
  I guess it's that most same sex pairings are between consenting adults, whereas children often are not allowed to give consent for such things.
  FTFY
  You have a point, when you are talking about teenagers above a certain level of mental development. It's pretty clear that teenagers at a certain point know what they are getting into, although I think it is wrong to state that they understand all the implications. On the other hand, there are 20 somethings who don't yet understand what they are getting into either.
  Still, most people you'd call the real pedos are not interested in anyone who could be called a young man or woman. They're children, usually not even capable of taking any sort of pleasure in the sex act, let alone understanding what it entails and what the possible repercussions are. They might certainly have an adult be able to convince them they should like it, or should be happy about it, but that's not the same thing as informed consent. That's more like a child trusting an adult because that is what children do. And that is why it is particularly disgusting when there is such an act.
70. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cpu6502 · 2012-05-10 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well put.
  I don't think people should be arrested for possessing images of kiddie porn, just as they should not be arrested for images of murder victims, or car accidents, or a pile of cocaine. The holder of these images is Not the guilty person who committed the sex or killing or accident or snorting.
  And I especially do not think people should be arrested for comics of kids, because there is no victim. No victim == no rights have been infringed == no crime.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
71. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that's quite right. It was not that he did not know he possessed them, it was that he did not posses them even though they were in his browser cache
  That's a great theory, but it doesn't seem to match up with what the ruling actually says:
  We must consider, among other issues, the evidentiary significance of "cache files," or temporary internet files automatically created and stored on a defendant's hard drive, and the defendant's awareness of the presence of such files. We conclude that where the evidence fails to show that defendant had such awareness, the People have not met their burden of demonstrating defendant's knowing procurement or possession of those files.
  I interpret this to mean that if the defendant didn't know about the cache, the claim that the cached files (all by themselves) are contraband is dead in the water. But I am not sure they are saying that a user who knows about the cache becomes the possessor of a web page the instant it appears on his screen. Look at what they said later:
  We also agree that where a promotion or possession conviction is premised on cached images
  or files as contraband, the People must prove, at a minimum, that the defendant was aware of the presence of those items in the cache.
  We hold, however, that regardless of a defendant's
  awareness of his computer's cache function, the files stored in
  the cache may constitute evidence of images that were previously
  viewed; to possess those images, however, the defendant's conduct
  must exceed mere viewing to encompass more affirmative acts of
  control such as printing, downloading or saving.
  This is a little confusingly worded, but the majority seems to want to see proof that the defendant tried to keep the images by storing them elsewhere on the hard disk. The dissent wants to see proof that the defendant wanted to keep the images on his screen. Both seem to see the cache (at least when used as intended) more as part of the trail of evidence which shows what buttons the defendant pressed in his web browser. They seem to want to see proof that the images were present on his computer by his orders and not simply as a side-effect of the technology.
72. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yea hop on Tor and enjoy the opva hidden onion site or hard candy on hidden wiki :P
  that place is full of cp, r@ygold, hussyfan, and babyshivid collections
73. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  The difference between viewing pornography on the Internet and possessing pornography may be illustrated this way: Suppose that word gets around a school that "there is a dirty picture in the third stall in the boy's room" and some of the boys make excuses to go and look. They do not become possessors of the picture. But one could become a possessor by taking the picture down, taking it home, and hiding it under his matress. And, if we assume (for purposes of argument) that what the boys did was wrong, what the last boy did was more wrong.
  Thanks for the lesson but your analogy is off. Under NY state law, looking at that picture on the wall is not illegal (federal law is another story but not in play in this case) but taking a picture of it so you can look again without going to the stall (i.e. caching it locally) means you now possess it. But what if the kid who took the picture didn't know that he has the picture, didn't look at it again, and didn't even take it on purpose. Can he be said to possess for purpose of criminal prosecution? The court said no. Taking it home and hiding it under his mattress would be a completely different story.
  I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The whole browser cache question comes to which of these two scenarios is most like the use of a browser with a cache. I would say it is more like the latter. The knowledgable user will know about the cache but probably never examines the files in it and does not consider them to be "saved". He lets the computer take care of it. It is as if the boy knew in theory that the camera in his prosthetic eye must have saved a picture of the bathroom wall for a few minutes, but doesn't care and doesn't try to extract it.
74. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  You're completely ignoring the concept of 'informed consent'.
  Nice use of dog-whistle politics, by the way.
75. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cpu6502 · 2012-05-10 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I have that VirginKiller image on my C: drive. I guess that makes me guilty of downloading under New York law.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
76. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Belial6 · 2012-05-10 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  I would assume that "(n18)" referred to an 18 year old. Why would anyone think that "(n18)" referred to someone under 18?
77. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. Do you always have to find a way to mention yourself in every conversation? What a self centered boring prick you are.
78. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by networkBoy · 2012-05-10 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Because I'm a dumbass who didn't use & lt; and /. ate the bracket. Should have been: n < 18
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
79. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Arker · 2012-05-10 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  While it is true this judge seems to understand the technology a little better than most, that really isnt saying much. He definitely doesnt understand the meaning of the word "download." Most non-technical people dont, I wince every time I hear someone using it as a synonym for "install" and that happens pretty frequently, but in this case the judge seems to be using it as a synonym for "save" instead. Certainly the files couldnt have been in the cache without being downloaded first...
  It's always very interesting watching lawyers try to deal with technology. Precise wording is so very important in law - but lawyers, in particular the older ones that you find on the bench but lawyers in general in my experience, dont tend to come anywhere near understanding technological issues well enough to avoid sloppy and just plain incorrect wording. Given how important precise wording is in law... this cant be a good thing.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
80. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  That's called victim mentality, and it seems nearly all North American people are infected with it.
  "Oh please, Grand and Glorious government, save me from this stuff!"
  Or it could be a darker reason, like wanting to see others suffer. "You broke the law! You're going to FPMITAP! Ha! Ha! Ha!"
  Most people don't have a clue what a browser cache is, much less why they'd want to "clear" it. This is a separate problem that compounds with the one(s) above.
  Most would be solved by people relaxing and paying more attention to what they do. Also by not being assholes.
81. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Arker · 2012-05-10 10:57 · Score: 2
  
  The insanity of the school systems is quite intentional, and the damage it does to any children whose parents cant or wont protect them from it can be horrific.
  When I was in school, I carried a knife every day, and so did every other kid. If you showed up with one that was considerably out of the 'pocket knife' classification they might get concerned enough to ask to hold onto it till the end of the day.
  When my father was in school, it was typical for kids in this area (rural, obviously) to come to school with a .22 rifle. Couldnt carry that to classes, of course, but you could have it stashed during the day, pick it back up on the way out, and use it to score some supper on the way back home. When boys got in a fight they would take them to the gym, strap gloves on, and let em go at it till they got it out of their system. Every kid around here had a firearm, and they knew that it was for hunting food, not settling scores. There were no school shootings. THAT was America, and somewhere along the way we have lost ourselves.
  Now? Schools are prisons. This is on purpose. What better way to create a compliant controllable population than to grab them young and stick them in a prison where they will learn to obey authority without question and little else? John Taylor Gatto's six-lesson schoolteacher laid out the basics of this in plain terms years ago, and everything that has happened since has just shown how right he was, and quite possibly how *understated* his indictment really was.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
82. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Belial6 · 2012-05-10 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, that makes a lot more sense.
83. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Which is in and of itself a convoluted legal argument constructed to defend society's moral default. It has no basis in rationality, and thus without sufficient underlying moral foundations is destined to fall to the ever-eroding sands of societal decay.
  I defend neither position, however many warned that the "gay rights" movement was opening Pandora's box. I fear time will prove this assertion correct.
84. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by hairyfeet · 2012-05-10 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  The thing that pisses me off is when we went waaaay the fuck off on a tangent and started equating cartoons and stories as the same as actual people...WTF? I'm sorry, but there is no other way to put it, that is thoughtcrime. When someone puts pen and ink together and creates their thoughts into either images or words and you jail them for it? Well FUCK YOU you fascist bastards you have crossed a line. We have so far thrown people into prison for anime, for badly drawn simpsons dirty toons, and for putting their thoughts on paper not once but twice..WTF people? I don't see how ANYONE can defend that shit.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
85. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by hairyfeet · 2012-05-10 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  Was it Firefox? The reason I ask is I'm not picking on FF but about a year ago I kept having customers weird emails that was just some gibberish and a single link. after some investigating it turned out when yahoo switched over to their new layout it was trivially easy to pop up a hidden iFrame that would let them log into yahoo and spam your yahoo address book with FF. Lucky it was just the usual "Buy our natural viagra!" kinda spam but what if it would have been CP? Just shows how stupid the law was before because someone would have just said "Hey I got an email from joe" and click on the link and by the law they were now a criminal.
  anyway I'd like to know if it was FF because while I've switched my Win 7 users to Dragon or chrome (since it has low rights mode and FF don't) I still have some XP customers that prefer FF and would like to have a heads up if there is a new bug I haven't heard about, also got a couple of Opera users and one Safari guy so knowledge of which browser bit you would at least let me give a heads up to whomever is using that browser, thanks.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
86. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · 2012-05-10 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  I never told anyone about that!
  
  --
  I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
87. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  Most (all?) private modes don't actually turn off the cache (that's usually rather impractical), they just clear it out when you're done with the session. However, that means the files did exist on your computer at some point, and could theoretically be found with an undelete program. I don't know of any browsers that run purely in RAM, but probably one exists somewhere (or would be interesting to create).
  I'm not sure that's right. My understanding is that Private Browsing modes reuse the cache from non-private browsing but do not add any new entries to the cache.
  That is, if you go to Google whilst Private Browsing then the browser will pull the google logo, css and so forth from the disk cache but if you then go to some site you haven't visited when normal browsing, those new files will not hit the disk and will only be kept in RAM cache. Of course, the RAM cache can be written to the swap so it's not foolproof.
88. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  Well, pedophiles are "the bottom of the barrel," "the lowest rung on the social ladder," and the target that everybody loves to hate.
  It's unfortunate that I find myself in this position (attracted to prepubescent boys my entire life, never attracted to adults of either sex). I have never offended (the last time I had a sexual encounter with a 12-year-old was when I was 12 myself). I think what happened was my best friend when I was 12 moved away and I never saw him again, even though I was in love with him. It kind of halted my emotional and sexual development, and I spent the next twenty years or so as a drug addict, just making the world go away over and over. Now that I'm in my early thirties, I've spent the last three years learning how to live without being fucked up all the time. it's screwed my life up (no driver's license, no money, no job, no work experience, no degree, little talent, no insurance, very few friends (3), etc...) Severe anxiety and depression, social anxiety, avoidant personality disorder, substance abuse.
  My self esteem is very low, and I feel a lot of guilt over it, even though I've done nothing wrong. I have tried to look at it more positively: I have had these sexual feelings my entire life, and yet I've never acted on them and never plan to. I should consider myself like a paladin, fighting the forces of evil, even hurting myself with substance abuse rather than hurting anyone else. I wrestle with emotional and psychological pain a lot, and see a therapist, but there's not a lot of real therapy for pedophiles.
  Actually, there is NO therapy for pedophiles. Being able to confide in someone can be helpful, but the risk is great. Chemical castration - but it seems pretty extreme if you've never offended and don't plan to. I'm pretty much facing the fact that I probably won't ever find someone (an adult) to fall in love with or grow old with. And sex is right out when pubic hair and large dicks are a turn-off.
  Here's one of my previous posts, concerning child pornography:
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2682747&cid=39107377
  Two other comments by me:
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2749659&cid=39502897
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2749659&cid=39501937
89. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by kermidge · 2012-05-10 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  "When I was in school, I carried a knife every day...."
  Yup, thanks, hadn't thought of it in years. While most of the relevant furniture, moldings, bleachers may not have survived, every school from second grade on was graced with my carved initials, part of the then rites of passage. Or simply, Kilroy was here.
  Compliance and un-thinking obedience are the new normal. Conformity rules. Brave new world, innit?
90. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  Thing with all this is, I doubt that you're ever going to stop pervs completely. In fact, if someone is a perv, that's their own problem. It's only when they can actually hurt children where there is a problem.
  If this data is being passed freely over p2p networks, no one is turning it into a business and making money off it. The fact is, stopping *free* dispersion of this material over the Internet isn't going to stop the source of it, and the source is where the children are being hurt. I suppose you could say that seeing that sort of thing encourages certain behavior, but I don't know that is true. And if some perv stays at home and looks at that instead of using their free time stalking some child at a school or something, it could have an unintended benefit.
  Point being, simply allowing pervs to maybe see some free porn that has already been made is definitely not worth turning an innocent person into a felon sex offender because they clicked on the wrong page because it doesn't help a single child.
  So, in fact, paedophiles should really be given free access to as much child porn as they want? Because obviously it's just a lifestyle choice, and it's fine for them to stoke up their twisted version of desire as much as possible?
  
  I am always disappointed by the level of sympathy for paedophiles on slashdot. They should be tracked down and sent to prison for life, and that includes the fuckers who "accidentally" download thousands of images of children being raped.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
91. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  For the record, I defend neither group; I'm a straight married white dude
  No, you're a bigoted moron, but hey ho.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
92. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  What pedophiles need is help, especially when evidence proves that some pedophilic urges are caused by physical problems and can be cured by surgery.
  So we're lobotomizing people again, eh? Just like they tried to "cure" homosexuals and other perceived "deviants" back in the 1950s.
  I assume you are some right wing Christian anti-gay bigot? If not, you're just plain stupid.
  
  Equating gays and paedophiles shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you probably don't even realise why it is so offensive.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
93. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  Wanting non-consensual sex however, is purely a personal problem.
  And it becomes a personal problem for the people they end up raping.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
94. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, in cases of human rape it's almost too easy... after the fact she decides it was rape and says so and even if it wasn't the guy gets canned.
  I don't think you'd be so casual about it if it was you who got raped.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
95. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cyclomedia · 2012-05-10 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's much worse than that, the western world is almost exclusively attracted to "young" people, spending a lot of time trying NOT to look like a fully mature human, nobody has any body hair any more to the point that people think a woman who doesn't shave/wax her legs is disgusting, men are waxing their chests and no one has any public hair any more either. People have nose jobs (because your nose gets larger as you get older) and other surgery to remove evidence that they're actually grown-ups. So basically we're all trying our best to look and act like we haven't been through puberty yet. Pedophilia is just a continuation of that trend.
  
  --
  If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
96. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  Desires are inherently victimless; they're just thoughts
  "Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires."
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
97. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  what makes prefering same sex pairings more 'normal' than someone who prefers children?
  I guess it's that most same sex pairings are between consenting adults, whereas children often are not allowed to give consent for such things.
  FTFY
  We're talking about people who want to rape babies and toddlers. You are either retarded or evil, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have some sort of brain damage.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
98. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  Up through the 1950s, they used to say that choosing to have sex with a same-sex partner demonstrated insanity and, legally speaking, insane people are considered unable to give consent, too.
  So fucking what?
  
  This attempt to equate paedophiles and gay people, and therefore somehow legitimise the former, because we no longer persecute the latter, makes me sick.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
99. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Lobotomy" may be a hyperbolic comparison, but that doesn't change the fact that what is being advocated is using medical science to forcibly cure people of socially unacceptable thoughts.
  It's not having socially unacceptable thoughts that puts paedophiles in prison, genius, it's raping children.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
100. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think people should be arrested for possessing images of kiddie porn
  You should start a political party campaigning for equal rights for paedophiles. Hopefully once you have lost your job, family, frriends and house you will realise that there is a good fucking reason why most countries have laws against child pronography, and that paedohilia isn't just a slightly unconventional lifestyle choice.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
101. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  But conversely, I wouldn't be too happy that paedophiles could have access to unlimited child porn just because they only streamed it from the internet rather than physically copying it to their hard drive.
  
  If you're going to make viewing child abuse images illegal, this would seem to be a too-easy way of getting round it.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
102. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  Furthermore, I wonder how many people who surfed the internet for legal (consentual, adult) pornography, have seen what looked like child porn at one time or another
  Well, I, for one never have. Maybe that's because I don't click on links with words like "lolita" or "pre-teen" in them. Oddly enough, most mainstream porn sites don't knowingly host child porn anyway. I can believe that you might get a misleading or malicious link for some reason to child porn, but I don't really see what the point would be for anyone running a porn site - it's not exactly going to encourage return visits.
  
  Viruses, trojans or whatever are a different matter.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
103. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  Going after people who look at pictures is a complete waste of time. Can't go after the ones who actually make it? Such a shame.
  They are not two separate groups of people, you utter imbecile. The best chance of tracing the images back to their source and prosecuting the scum who made them is by arresting a few paedo-feebs and sweating some information out of the fuckers by having a nice long jail term as a stick..
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
104. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Great in theory, but how many 'mundanes' know to clear their browser cache? How many of them know how to clear their cache? You could slide over 3 or more kiddie porn images in 4 or 5 years no problem, and by the Fed statute, still be prosecutable.
  I just checked on my work IE, and (for some reason) you can set the cache to keep a maximum of 999 days of history, so it would be impossible to have 4 or 5 years' worth.
  
  Also, the default is 20 days, which presumably the "mundanes" would be using anyway.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
105. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · 2012-05-11 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you'd be so casual about it if it was you who got raped.
  It's not rape if I like it.
  
  --
  I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
106. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-11 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  That's fair enough. The other cases I have linked in my replies demonstrated a much clearer affirmative action (copying out of the cache, manually deleting the cache files, etc). However, I tend to think most judges aren't going to be quite so demanding on this. Also, this case will spur state legislatures to make sure their laws include viewing. Then the cache will support the viewing piece, whether or not it proves possession.
107. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-11 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't hate gays. The point is I also don't hate pedophiles.
  Virtually every manner of rationale, punishment, treatment, and "cure" used against pedophiles nowadays was once used against homosexuals. The comparison is apt, whether or not you find it "offensive." If you find the comparison ...uncomfortable, maybe you need to re-evaluate your own biases.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
108. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  Fido tries to rape me all the time.
109. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-11 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure it does. As I said in another reply moments ago:
  
  Virtually every manner of rationale, punishment, treatment, and "cure" used against pedophiles nowadays was once used against homosexuals. The comparison is apt, whether or not you find it "offensive." If you find the comparison ...uncomfortable, maybe you need to re-evaluate your own biases.
  Every manner of sexual non-normativeness has made people "sick" at some point in history. Homosexuality, "sodomy," polygamy, adultery, even mere "fornication." Most people in the so-called "civilized" world have woken up to the ridiculousness of legislating sexual mores. Unless someone is outright victimizing someone, their "sick" desires are harmless and should be let alone, no matter how "sick" you may think they are.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
110. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by J'raxis · 2012-05-11 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's not having socially unacceptable thoughts that puts paedophiles in prison, genius, it's raping children.
  A person expressing their pedophilic desires is not "raping children," yet there are numerous examples of someone doing so, e.g. in front of a psychiatrist, and being attacked by the legal system as a result.
  A person downloading CP is not "raping children," yet this is considered an extremely serious "crime." The legal system attacks people more severely for this than it does for many actually victimful crimes, such as the actual rape of an adult woman.
  A person downloading, or even making, cartoon CP is not "raping children" yet the U.S. Government has attempted to make this behavior criminal (it failed), and several other governments have actually succeeded.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
111. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  The best chance of tracing the images back to their source and prosecuting the scum who made them is by arresting a few paedo-feebs and sweating some information out of the fuckers by having a nice long jail term as a stick..
  "Frostwire. I didn't keep IP logs. I suggest you install it and search for one of these keywords if you want to see what I mean."
  Actually, it would be a rather interesting study to do reverse DNS on the IPs and find out if any of them are in the US, and sic the FBI on them if so. Highly illegal, of course, if you do the diligence of verifying that it's not just some trojan serving up fake results and spam, by actually initiating a download and verifying that there's an actual file to be downloaded, and that the filename correctly describes it.
112. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cpu6502 · 2012-05-11 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't recall saying kids should be raped. I said possession of an image should not be a crime, just a possession of marijuana should not be a crime, and possession of a machine gun should not be a crime. It is the ACT of hurting someone else that is the crime, not the possession of murder photos, a plant, or a gun.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
113. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  The Velcro gloves in a sheep herder's shed?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
114. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by jamstar7 · 2012-05-11 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  That of course assumes you didn't get hit with a trojan or virus that changed the settings. Hell, even Update changes settings at times. Remember when everybody's Firefox got changed to point at Bing first? A work computer should be relatively stock software-wise, except of course for the 'showstopper' apps needed to do yur job. Most people I know claim to not randomly surf the net from work.
  
  I've met people who don't know how to set the clock on their computers and their CMOS battery died. How the damned computer even works I have no clue, but it did. Most times I've run into that situation, the computer was so unstable it kept losing drives all the time.
  
  And 999 days is over 2 1/2 years, btw.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
115. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  What an Anonymous Coward needs is a bullet to the head
  See how easy it is to go against another group?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
116. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-11 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  They are not two separate groups of people, you utter imbecile.
  They are unless you're saying all people who look at the pictures are actually rapists, but that's not true.
  
  The best chance of tracing the images back to their source and prosecuting the scum who made them is by arresting a few paedo-feebs and sweating some information out of the fuckers by having a nice long jail term as a stick..
  They can do so without convicting people looking at pictures. And they often seem to be targeting those guys, specifically.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
117. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by hairyfeet · 2012-05-11 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but your logic doesn't hold because frankly it wouldn't be hard to spot a pattern. if they go back day after day to sick site A then one can reasonably suggest that they wanted to go to sick site A where someone who was hit by clickjacker or get rickrolled could be easily spotted because their sites are average and boring and then suddenly their site count goes through the roof and is a bunch of weird sites that they normally don't go to.
  You see working on everyday folk's PCs day after day you learn things, like folks are creatures of habit. I'll take myself for an example, if one were to look through my browser logs one would quickly notice patterns, like I check my email twice a day, once in the morning and once at night, I like documentaries, especially on WWII planes and tanks, I like Star Trek, I like video games. If one were to go looking for porn links they would see there is a couple of sites I go to and any links that aren't on those sites were referred from those sites.
  So you see friend it really wouldn't be hard to spot the difference. I have a friend that works in the state crime lab catching pedos (he keeps trying to recruit me..HELL no, not enough brain bleach in the world!) and the first thing he'd tell you is pedos would NEVER "just stream" as they collect that shit like some collect Star Wars stuff. He says when they bust a pedo if they find less than 3 DVD spindles filled with CP crap he is frankly amazed, they would NEVER "just stream" because those kinds of sites naturally move often and are shut down so they would be afraid of losing their stash.
  BTW you should go to Wikileaks and read the letter put up there by a CP dealer and read what he has to say, he LHAO at those that get busted for clickjacker style bugs, hell he will sometimes do that to an innocent person because he thinks its 'funny". he is the kind of guy that would throw rocks off an overpass just to see people crash and he lays out quite clearly how his customers get to his CP and it is NOT something once can just "stumble across". So again one could look at patterns and see the difference between say his customers and a normal schmuck looking for girls in cheerleader outfits and tripping over something else.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
118. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by lsatenstein · 2012-05-12 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  I have never seen child porn, and with all that talk, I am curious to see what it is all about. Does this mean that because I have never seen it and if I exercise my mouse click to satisfy my curiousity, that I am a criminal?
  I could understand that if I started to collect the porn, (the downloads are multiple, with different time stamps), that I am guilty of collecting same. Still, being a pervert mains being proactive, does it not.
  I guess that if I downloaded and saved pictures of liquor bottles, glasses of booz, etc. that saving those pictures would make me an alcoholic.
  And thats my view.
  
  --
  Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
119. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by kyrio · 2012-05-12 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  After it happened in one browser, I tested all of the other browsers and they all had the same issue. I contacted the advertiser (not the spammers, but the people running the ad network), so who knows what will happen. This may even be a new vulnerability that hasn't been patched/isn't known by the browser developers.
120. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by toddestan · 2012-05-12 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Don't the browser packages that are meant to run from a USB memory stick run entirely in ram? You can also take it a step further and run the whole OS in ram using a live CD.
121. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-12 13:10 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit. The Commodore 64 doesn't have a C: drive.
122. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-14 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Are you talking about the same Wikileaks that I'm thinking of? "My life in child porn" or something like that, iirc. If not, post a link.
123. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense, I guess by MikeBabcock · 2012-05-14 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the amount of estrogen in drinking water in the western world (due mostly to women peeing out excesses from taking the pill), most young women are much more mature looking physically than they were a couple generations ago. Being physically attracted to young perfect skin and hair on a girl with the body of a woman is not something I can rationally hold against anyone.
  Of course, the above is androphilia not paedophilia but the media doesn't distinguish (and I suspect you were talking about adolescents as well).
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by denis-The-menace · 2012-05-10 01:33 · Score: -1

All they have to do is find a site on the internet to *view* from and it's legal.

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
1. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by oztiks · 2012-05-10 01:36 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder what impacts cloud will have on this, with say googles terms of use they retain ownership of data, does that mean one day google would be registered as a sex offender?
2. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by twocows · 2012-05-10 01:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Who cares? Maybe now they'll actually start going after the creeps that make this stuff.
3. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by Sarten-X · 2012-05-10 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  As I recall, Google's terms (and most that I've read) specifically say that the creator keeps ownership, but they perpetually keep a license to use, reproduce, etc. that information.
  This ruling's also likely a good thing for them, as Google itself doesn't need to do anything. If child porn shows up on their servers through normal operations, they didn't make any action to specifically obtain it, so they're likely free and clear... though as a private entity they are under no obligation to respect users' privacy (except as detailed in their privacy policies and other documents that may be considered legal contracts) and can choose to turn over identification information about any user that uploads anything questionable.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
4. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  your point? its the site that is hurting the children. If you constantly go after the end point you are in no way remedying the issue and too many "innocent" people get hurt in the process. The sites and the recorders are the ones who need to be got. Pool less money toward prosocuting some poor bastard who had a popup site and spend more tracking the offenders that actually hurt the children.
5. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by Shoten · 2012-05-10 02:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I've been involved in situations where people accidentally got exposed to child porn (or any other kind) because of popups from malware, and situations where they deliberately went out to find it. Trust me; the two sets of behavior, from a computer forensics perspective, look NOTHING alike. A pedobear's cache will be filled with the stuff, while the innocent bystander will have relatively few of them. I thought the same thing you did, once, but was actually shocked to see how incredibly different the two behaviors look.
  
  --
  
  For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
6. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by Dishevel · 2012-05-10 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  I am not sure the GP was actually asking a question.
  Seemed to me he was just using this to attempt to spread the "Google Owns You" FUD.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
7. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by kidgenius · 2012-05-10 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't know if that'll work. If you take a look at the similarly aimed "WAR ON DRUGS", targeting users instead of dealers has been a resounding success!
8. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by Penguinisto · 2012-05-10 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  This, right here.
  The whole legal backing behind the illegality of CP is that a child was exploited in that manner to make the photographs. Catch the exploiters, and while harder to do, will have a far more fruitful outcome than simply throwing everyone in jail who happened to see it.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
9. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by DrgnDancer · 2012-05-10 02:35 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The problem is the zero tolerance policy of prosecution and the general lack of understanding of the technology among law enforcement. You are no doubt correct, but making those sorts of distinctions is harder than it seems when the laws say "possession is possession". If a browser cache is defined as "possession", then it's much harder to avoid prosecution of innocents. Also I have limited experience with the sort of malware that others have commented on, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that could populate your cache pretty fast (of course it should also leave its own signature, but again law enforcement isn't always expert in these matters). Frankly I think that a real "pedobear" would probably have at least some "favorite" stuff saved somewhere other than their browser cache; so this probably won't really hurt legitimate prosecutions much, but might help a few innocents.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
10. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by tnk1 · 2012-05-10 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't go that far. The cops at some point could use the cached images as "probable cause" to open a deeper investigation and then keep an eye on the subject's internet traffic. Building a history of the deviant seeking out those "viewing" sites could probably be used to convict them where the simple existence of illicit images in their browser cache could not. In that case, the police and prosecutors are held to a higher standard of proving that this person is actually trying to get this material, instead of just being able to say that the mere existence of them on the machine is proof. I think that would be a much better way to go about it, protecting more innocent people from accidents or even malicious frame jobs using the material to turn someone into an instant felon.
11. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  I've been involved in situations where people accidentally got exposed to child porn (or any other kind) because of popups from malware, and situations where they deliberately went out to find it. Trust me; the two sets of behavior, from a computer forensics perspective, look NOTHING alike. A pedobear's cache will be filled with the stuff, while the innocent bystander will have relatively few of them. I thought the same thing you did, once, but was actually shocked to see how incredibly different the two behaviors look.
  Not useful if you're actually looking at forensics. But very useful if you're fishing for crimes you can pile on. Questionable conviction in software piracy? Find some CP in a browser cache, no matter how few instances, and you've got bank.
12. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  All they have to do is find a site on the internet to *view* from and it's legal.
  So then the judge will grant a warrant based on all the other evidence, just like they do right now since they already don't have access to the browser's cache until AFTER they search it. Upon searching, they will use the data in the browser's cache to establish that a connection was indeed made. The next step is to identify the person using the machine at the time, again using established methods not related to this ruling. Next is to examine intent, again the amount in the cache can be used for this purpose. Finally, they hit them with possession, including that which is in the cache.
  The decision makes it so that cache data cannot by itself be considered possession. If it's cached, they have to demonstrate intent to keep. But if you've got a record of multiple hits over different sessions to all sorts of known image locations you've already established intent. At that point using the cache data is just a technique to inflate penalties and make a good press release.
  Oh, but nice hyperbole. Only an idiot would think this made anything legal.
13. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by tnk1 · 2012-05-10 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Mind you, I am all in favor of this change. I hate the fact that accidental viewing could be like a legal version of catching a fatal disease via airborne virus.
  Still, does this sort of thing actually come up in pop-ups? I've seen more naked people than I could count show up on my screen from mis-clicks, but not a one of them was underage, as far as I could tell. Even the "barely legal" ones were pretty obviously not children.
  I think the real danger with the fact you could be jailed for viewing CP has a lot to do with its potential for malicious use against anyone at any time.
14. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by oztiks · 2012-05-10 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, I was just raising a point. Constructive feedback is constructive. Thank you!
15. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by ShanghaiBill · 2012-05-10 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  The whole legal backing behind the illegality of CP is that a child was exploited in that manner to make the photographs.
  Wrong. Child porn is illegal even if it consists only of drawings or animation that clearly involve no actual child.
16. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong.
  Wrong. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
  The original intent of outlawing CP in 1973 was to go after the producers---the people who actually sexually assaulted children. It had nothing to do with legislating morality, criminalizing paraphilias, and so on. Over the next 20-30 years, though, the U.S. Government slowly expanded these laws to cover all manner of victimless crimes, like they do with everything else. And of course since so many people are so disgusted by CP and pedophilia that they either don't even notice this or don't care.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
17. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by sourcerror · 2012-05-10 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on which country we're speaking about.
18. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by misexistentialist · 2012-05-10 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Of course with digital cameras in the hands of kids they are certainly the leading producers of underage nude portraiture...
19. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by tompaulco · 2012-05-10 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Catch the exploiters, and while harder to do, will have a far more fruitful outcome than simply throwing everyone in jail who happened to see it.
  But the actual criminals might be dangerous. Just like it is easier to go after the drug users than the suppliers, and it is easier to go after people who killed a criminal in self defense than it is to go after the criminal, it is easier to go after the guy in his mom's basement that browses CP. Of course, it has backfired with drugs, because now the users are becoming criminals just to obtain the drugs or obtain the money to get the drugs, so now they have become dangerous. Perhaps the same thing might happen to people who browse CP or people who killed a criminal in self defense might now start shooting at the cops when they come to throw them in jail.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
20. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by blueg3 · 2012-05-10 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  There's not really a zero-tolerance policy, though. It may appear so from the law, but there are a lot of other factors. Few prosecutors (and forensic analysts, for that matter) are willing to waste their time on something that is clearly accidental. (It's even rarer that accidental downloads even get caught, because the few sting operations that are out there are built to appeal to habitual downloaders. Most incidences of CP possession are reported by a third party or are a suspect who is being picked up on another, related charge.) The innocent usually fight it in court with the obvious "accidental" defense. It's not cheap for the prosecutor to fight it in court when it can create bad press and is likely to either result in either an acquittal or a ruling exactly like this.
21. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by blueg3 · 2012-05-10 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Police don't generally investigate software piracy, since it's civil instead of criminal. Something larger-scale, the FBI might get involved, but then their search warrant is going to need to be broad enough to cover "anything illicit we might happen to find on this computer"; otherwise the CP they run across is of little value. A lot of computer search warrants these days aren't drawn up that broadly any more.
22. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by blueg3 · 2012-05-10 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Finding cached images requires a search of the hard disk, which requires seizure of the computer hardware, which requires probable cause in order to get a search and seizure warrant. So if you have probable cause, you can find data that gives you probable cause?
  The real danger from browser cache files, in my mind, is when they're old enough that the no longer have strong Web history attached to them. Maybe even they're off in the unallocated space in the disk (that is, the cached files have been "deleted), so it's not even clear that they're browser cache files. Now you have some CP images that are on your computer and it's not clear to the investigator *why* they're there. That's more dangerous (to you) then if there's information that makes it clear that they are there as a result of an accident (or some other non-willful mechanism). Some judges and prosecutors won't accept unallocated-space CP (since there's no evidence of intent), but some will.
23. Re:IOW: Pedobears have a loophole by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-10 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Still, does this sort of thing actually come up in pop-ups? I've seen more naked people than I could count show up on my screen from mis-clicks, but not a one of them was underage, as far as I could tell. Even the "barely legal" ones were pretty obviously not children.
  Unfortunately, "as far as I could tell" doesn't keep you out of prison if the DA wants to come across as non-lenient toward child porn. And "obviously not children" doesn't work either when the age of consent is 18. You can't tell the difference between "barely legal" and "barely not legal". Unless you have a guaranteed statement that the site kept its whatever-federal-code-number legal records (all models were above the age of 18 blah blah blah), you're not safe.
  And if you're still not sure as to where you'd find questionable material, I have one word for you: amateur. Tired of stale, canned acting from girls with bleached hair and boob jobs, where the script is a semi-serious attempt to get a dude's load blown on her tits? Put "amatuer" + "porn" in the Google search field... not everything that shows up if you start browsing those sites is going to come with that legal disclaimer, or any disclaimer, other than "this site is not responsible for the stuff that people upload, browse at your own risk".
Tonight... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:35 · Score: 5, Funny

4chan celebrates this legal victory!
In all seriousness, I do support this. Over the years, so many images have been displayed on my monitors (#chan etc) and I would never have known for certain if one had involved a 16/17 year old instead of an 18+ year old if it did not explicitly say so.
I don't live in NY though...
1. Re:Tonight... by Sarten-X · 2012-05-10 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Even outside NY, I believe (though IANAL) the ruling can be used as precedent, and can be referred to in other cases to persuade the judge to come to the same conclusion.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
2. Re:Tonight... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  By US law I became a pedophile the day I turned 18 - thankfully local laws says having sex (well wanting to at least) with minors aged above 15 are ok as long as you are not in a trusted circle (e.g. teacher, parent of a friend etc).
3. Re:Tonight... by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Even outside NY, I believe (though IANAL) the ruling can be used as precedent, and can be referred to in other cases to persuade the judge to come to the same conclusion.
  Only if their local laws are written similarly to NY's. Keep in mind that the federal statute does make viewing (regardless of possession) illegal, but it does require intent.
4. Re:Tonight... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  By US law I became a pedophile the day I turned 18 - thankfully local laws says having sex (well wanting to at least) with minors aged above 15 are ok as long as you are not in a trusted circle (e.g. teacher, parent of a friend etc).
  Pix or it didn't happen
5. Re:Tonight... by blackraven14250 · 2012-05-10 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  The court here just ruled in such a way that a browser's cached images alone may not be enough to establish intent.
6. Re:Tonight... by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  The NY law at issue doesn't speak to intent at all. If you posses CP images, you are breaking the law. End of story. The issue in this case was whether someone can be held responsible for possessing something he doesn't know he has (i.e. images cached by the browser). This is completely separate from the intent required by the federal law. If he was charged under it, the prosecutor would have to prove that he was looking for CP or at least knew what he was getting when he looked at it.
7. Re:Tonight... by TheCarp · 2012-05-10 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I mean, even I am a bit young to actually remember it but... remember the "Traci Lords" scandal?
  We have laws about ID in bars (which I think is stupid but don't get me started about drinking laws) precisely because its impossible to tell with accuracy who is over/under a certain age by visual inspection. When viewing porn, who fucking knows. Its not like every picture has the models in the scene holding up their ID.
  even more ludicris.... a picture of a 16 year old is child porn, but with the laws about age of consent in my, and a few other states, its perfectly legal to have sex with that same 16 year old. (with her consent of course... though, as I read it, it may not be legal to have sex with her if she is a virgin until she is 18.... though, others don't seem to interpret it the same way, but that is how I read it)
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
8. Re:Tonight... by tompaulco · 2012-05-10 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Coincidentally, Pandora just served up "No Quarter" off of Led Zeppelins "Houses of the Holy" album, complete with album cover art. Guess I'm off to jail. Hopefully, they don't serve up some Blind Faith next, or I'm really in for it.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
9. Re:Tonight... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  I believe that state decisions only apply to the state, as it does in this case. If this state law, for example, was lost in this court, they could take the appeal to the federal level on constitutional grounds to the local federal district court of appeals, it would apply to the that federal district's jurisdiction. If it gets appealed higher to SCOTUS and they side with the defendant, that ruling applies everywhere, and I believe (but am not sure) it would trump any similiar worded local and state laws as well.
  However, by the design of the internet, if you accessed a website or your data packets went over state lines, it becomes a federally prosecutable crime. It's up to them whether they still want to charge you at that point, but as another poster pointed out, there is an affirmative defense at the federal level for up to three images if you immediately deleted them, browser cache or not. That still won't stop you from being the front-page pervert of the week on every local news channel.
  IANAL, but an always-learning hobbyist law geek.
10. Re:Tonight... by Sarten-X · 2012-05-10 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  The ruling itself wouldn't apply out of state, but in another state where there is no clear precedent, I believe a lawyer can say "New York already discussed this at length, and came to this conclusion. Whaddya say we save time and money and you just agree with New York, your honor?"
  (IA(also)NAL, just a learning geek as well)
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Downloading? by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-05-10 01:38 · Score: -1, Troll

Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically don't you download a page in order to view it?

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
1. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  The conundrum is: how do you know what's on the page without viewing it? Any web page could contain any kind of images and you can't know what's on it before you make the request.
  Just like police investigators can't determine whether porn is child porn without viewing it. If viewing it were illegal, the police officers and FBI agents would be breaking the law by enforcing it.
2. Re:Downloading? by V-similitude · 2012-05-10 01:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Did you even read the summary?
  
  The prosecution mentioned that the images were saved on his hard drive via the browser cache. However the court ruled that this was not the same as having a saved image.
  The court asserted that there must be some deliberate action to save/store said images, not just a transitory download via a browser.
3. Re:Downloading? by mark-t · 2012-05-10 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  The only situation I can think of where you can view it without downloading it is when it was already saved onto the computer by somebody else. But if you are the owner or operator of the computer, I'm not entirely sure how you're going to believably argue that it wasn't you who downloaded it or saved it there.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
4. Re:Downloading? by MarkGriz · 2012-05-10 01:46 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Did you even read the summary?
  Did you even read his Slashdot userid?
  
  --
  Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
5. Re:Downloading? by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  The court asserted that there must be some deliberate action to save/store said images, not just a transitory download via a browser.
  Actually, that's not completely accurate. The court said that the prosecution failed to prove that Kent knew about the browser cache. At least two previous cases (here and here) left open this possibility but those cases had clear-cut cases of the defendant accessing and using the browser's cache. The transitory download is still illegal if you know about it.
6. Re:Downloading? by MarkGriz · 2012-05-10 01:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  FFS mods, how is that trolling.
  Someone self identifies as an idiot, and then proceeds to prove it.
  Pointing out the obvious does not a troll make.
  
  --
  Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
7. Re:Downloading? by synapse7 · 2012-05-10 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Distinguishing the difference between actively downloading or browsing to, vs. walking by and noticing?
8. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  Technically yes. But the judge is making a legal distinction between the types of downloading.
  
  If you had a gun, and it fires and kills someone whether you are guilty of murder or not is typically based on what the Court thinks your intentions were.
  
  Also relevant are stuff like gross negligence e.g. if your gun has a known habit of firing by itself, and you have been warned of the problem, you're usually going to be punished more severely.
  
  If you bought a gun that you knew was prone to accidental firing, and purposely pointed it at a person you wanted to kill, and it accidentally went off, you could still be guilty of murder. Despite the fact that from a technical point of view it genuinely accidentally went off.
  
  Some people may need to set their "Aspergers" knobs to 1 in order to understand the verdict better ;).
9. Re:Downloading? by mark-t · 2012-05-10 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  What if you know about it, but did not intend it? IE, you only knew about it after the fact?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
10. Re:Downloading? by V-similitude · 2012-05-10 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Mine's worse! :(
11. Re:Downloading? by ccguy · 2012-05-10 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically don't you download a page in order to view it?
  No. A page is downloaded indeed, but it doesn't mean that "you" download it (as in you willingly do something that triggers the action).
  
  We can discuss technicalities all we want, but this seems like one of the cases where the judge doesn't need to care about tech stuff. Did the defendant want to see child porn and did something about it, or not? Was the defendant looking for something else and got to that porn stuff instead?
12. Re:Downloading? by V-similitude · 2012-05-10 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you had a gun, and it fires and kills someone whether you are guilty of murder or not is typically based on what the Court thinks your intentions were.
  Um, yes it is. Murder 1 vs Murder 2 vs Manslaughter.
13. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  FFS mods, how is that trolling.
  Someone self identifies as an idiot, and then proceeds to prove it.
  Pointing out the obvious does not a troll make.
  No, but following up your own post with bitching about how it got modded is trolling for replies like this one.
14. Re:Downloading? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-10 02:04 · Score: 2
  
  Something like Link prefetching would make it fairly easy to 'download' in only the strictly technical sense of the term, without intent or knowledge on your part, which seems to be what the case means by 'download'. The same would be true of certain flavors of spam or malware infestations.
  
  You go to page A, fasterfox starts gobbling its way through all the links on page A, all of Page B's images end up in your cache. Your computer obviously 'downloaded' the file; but the chain of intent between your actions and the download is pretty tenuous. If you went to page B, right-clicked, and hit 'save as' your computer was still the one that downloaded it; but the chain of intent is quite clear and points right back to you, not to an unintended behavior of a complex tool.
15. Re:Downloading? by jythie · 2012-05-10 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Pop up ads (or ads in general). While many of us use blockers and such, most people still do not. There is also the situation of simply clicking on links without knowing where they actually go... rickrolls and goatsx have gotten plenty of people over the years, it is plausible that someone could click on poorly worked links that end up being CP.
16. Re:Downloading? by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 02:18 · Score: 2
  
  What if you know about it, but did not intend it? IE, you only knew about it after the fact?
  Well, according to 18 USC 2252A, it seems that hinges on the definition of "knowingly". The law also specifically allows an affirmative defense if you possessed less than three images and promptly destroyed them (without sharing or retaining any of them).
17. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, never think that there are no pedos in the geeksphere. How do you think all that dark web stuff got created? Another geek site had some CP stories recently, and several posters defended *collecting* child porn. One even appeared to defend its creation if there was "no coercion" involved. The geek community has devolved into a sick place.
18. Re:Downloading? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-10 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Today's secret word is 'cache'.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
19. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  So are you agreeing with him then?
20. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  First Degree Murder: Premeditated
  Second Degree Murder: Crime of passion, not premeditated
  Manslaughter: Accidental Death of another person
  Those are not near all the definitions to the different charges, but that alone shows that the Court clearly bases what you are charged with on what your intentions were while committing the crime.
21. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Which is exactly what the original poster stated, just to be clear.
  An excerpt, for easy reading:
  
  whether you are guilty of murder or not is typically based on what the Court thinks your intentions were
22. Re:Downloading? by WalkingBear · 2012-05-10 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  The ruling states that you, basically, have to take deliberate actions to save the image to your hard drive. Merely viewing a page in your browser without further actions on your part to "procure" the image (ie.. save it to a folder on your system, rather than just the browser cache) is what the court is speaking to.
  Metaphor time: Having someone park a stolen car in front of your house is like viewing a page (#chan?) with CP on it without specifically looking for it. Going out and pulling that car into your garage and closing the garage door would be like saving the image to your hard drive for later perusal and enjoyment.
23. Re:Downloading? by nedlohs · 2012-05-10 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's what the sentence you quoted said.
24. Re:Downloading? by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  I had a hell of a time parsing that sentence too (yay for another "whether or not" string of confusion). But he's basically saying "Your intent is factored in when a court makes its decision."
25. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  Pop up ads (or ads in general). While many of us use blockers and such, most people still do not. There is also the situation of simply clicking on links without knowing where they actually go... rickrolls and goatsx have gotten plenty of people over the years, it is plausible that someone could click on poorly worked links that end up being CP.
  Oh, you mean like this?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
26. Re:Downloading? by DavidTC · 2012-05-10 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no, the fact is the original poster was just wrong. A gun that accidentally goes off without any negligence on your part is not, in any way, murder or even manslaughter.
  Likewise, a gun that you deliberately point at someone, but do not deliberately fire (Of course, guns do not act like this, but let's pretend.), is not murder, it's manslaughter.
  The original poster does not appear to know what 'intent' means and how it's required for all criminal actions. You must be 'intending' to do what happened. It's just with crimes like negligence, it's 'intending to behave negligently' that is required. You must intentionally neglecting your duty to take precautions not to accidentally shoot people.
  The problem is that CP laws should all have the word 'knowingly' in them, which requires that not only do people 'intentionally' do whatever they did, but that they expected that outcome. (Unlike negligence laws, where you just have to fail a basic duty, or do something specific, that a normal person can see is risky.)
  But not all CP laws require possessing it 'knowingly', (Because it's harder to prove, and Won't Someone Think of the CHILDREN!), so we have apparently created a universe where 'using the WWW like normal' counts as negligent, because there is actually no way to stop your web browser from requesting whatever images the web page wants, and no way for you to know in advance, or even after it happened. (NY's law, luckily, does require it to happen knowingly, and a judge somehow understood the difference...but that doesn't help much elsewhere.)
  If a basic behavior that 80% of the population does every day, and 99% of the adult population has done at one time, counts as 'negligent' under the law and can result in people being randomly locked up, I have to suggest the law is wrong.
  Incidentally, other laws outlawing possession, like drug laws, do require you possess drugs knowingly. Because otherwise drug dealers have lots of fun mailing drugs to the chief of police.
  I have to ask that people in other countries, where surely it's possible to find an image that is legal there but illegal here (There are a few famous movies that are illegal here because of the age of the actors appearing nude, but many countries have exceptions for that sort of thing, so start there.), and start mailing that image at the people creating these idiotic laws.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
27. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  If viewing it were illegal, the police officers and FBI agents would be breaking the law by enforcing it.
  No, quite wrong. Prosecutors, police and professionals involved in carrying necessary duties in an investigation cannot be prosecuted for doing so. Just like a doctor cannot be prosecuted for examining a child's genitals in the course of carrying out their professional duties.
28. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Utterly technically speaking, there is such a thing as browser cache that might contain such "illegal" material that can be saved for further "reference". There's clearly an intent if so, nothing transitory. Legal loop in place ...
29. Re:Downloading? by jythie · 2012-05-10 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  *smirk* that would indeed be an good example.
30. Re:Downloading? by V-similitude · 2012-05-10 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  You're right.... Lol, but I guess many people misunderstood the same way, since I still got modded-up for it.
31. Re:Downloading? by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically don't you download a page in order to view it?
  Technically, yes. Your computer may also "save" the page in your browser cache. But you do not take possesion of what is on the page until you press a button and save it somewhere where you can find it again.
32. Re:Downloading? by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  The transitory download is still illegal if you know about it.
  That would mean that one could be guilty just by knowing that the browser cache exists, even if you didn't try to keep the files that were in it. That makes little sense.
33. Re:Downloading? by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  The only situation I can think of where you can view it without downloading it is when it was already saved onto the computer by somebody else. But if you are the owner or operator of the computer, I'm not entirely sure how you're going to believably argue that it wasn't you who downloaded it or saved it there.
  You are thinking like a computer programmer. Yes, downloading one or more files is a part of the technical process of viewing a web page. But it is very different (as perceived by the user) from downloading a file and saving it for later use. The essence of this ruling is that what matters is what the human being operating the computer did, not what the computer did behind the scenes in order to carry out its master's will.
34. Re:Downloading? by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  That would mean that one could be guilty just by knowing that the browser cache exists, even if you didn't try to keep the files that were in it. That makes little sense.
  It's pretty straightforward actually; perhaps you're looking at this from the wrong end.
  You are guilty if found to be in possession of CP. A possible defense (and one which worked in this case) is that you couldn't be held responsible for possessing something that you never knew you had. If you know that your browser caches images and there is CP in your browser cache, that defense is unlikely to work.
35. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  I asked V-similitude a direct question. Assuming you are him, again: So you agree with the poster above you (http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2841383&cid=39953525) that the court does take into account your intentions when charging you with one of those charges? And you simply replied to reiterate what had already been said because you didn't take the time to read the post I linked above properly?
36. Re:Downloading? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  So I was right - police ARE above the law!
37. Re:Downloading? by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  That would mean that one could be guilty just by knowing that the browser cache exists, even if you didn't try to keep the files that were in it. That makes little sense.
  It's pretty straightforward actually; perhaps you're looking at this from the wrong end.
  You are guilty if found to be in possession of CP.
  I understand that. The question is: does one posses (in a legal sense) the contents of one's browser cache. You seem to be saying that you do if you know that the browser cache exists. But this would mean that if two persons open the same web page without knowning its content, see that it contains CP and immediately close the window, the one who does not know about browser caches is innocent but the one who knows is guilty of possession. This is what the courts call an absurd result. They try to find a way to interpret the law so as to avoid such results.
38. Re:Downloading? by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  The question is: does one posses (in a legal sense) the contents of one's browser cache.
  That seems like an absurd question. Of course you do, generally speaking.
  
  You seem to be saying that you do if you know that the browser cache exists.
  Again, you're coming at this ass backwards. You're not guilty because you know how a browser works. You are guilty because you have CP on your computer. However, if you can convince a judge/jury that you had no idea that it was there, you might get away with it.
  
  But this would mean that if two persons open the same web page without knowning its content, see that it contains CP and immediately close the window, the one who does not know about browser caches is innocent but the one who knows is guilty of possession.
  Both have broken the law (assuming neither clears the cache or otherwise gets rid of the images). The one who knows they still have the pictures but does nothing to get rid of them is pretty likely to get in trouble for it. The other one has a pretty good argument for some mitigating circumstances. This is how the legal system works.
  
  This is what the courts call an absurd result. They try to find a way to interpret the law so as to avoid such results.
  I'm not defending the law. It has a huge loophole because it does not criminalize viewing the content. As written, you can look at all the CP you want as long as you don't possess it. But that's really unrelated to your complaint.
  Maybe a car analogy would help you? If you rob a bank and I then drive you to the bus station in the next town, that looks bad and I'm likely to get arrested or at least detained by the cops. If I knew you robbed that bank and was the fleeing the cops, I'm probably in big trouble. If I had no idea about any of that and just did you a neighborly favor, I'm much less likely to get in trouble. Is this absurd?
  Or if you need something involving possession, how about drugs? If your friend drops off a package on your porch and the cops show up and find drugs in it, is it fair for you to be charged for possession of drugs if you had no idea what was in the package? Is it absurd for a judge to consider whether or not you knew, or should have known, that you had an illicit substance in your house?
39. Re:Downloading? by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically don't you download a page in order to view it?
  Technically, yes. Your computer may also "save" the page in your browser cache. But you do not take possesion of what is on the page until you press a button and save it somewhere where you can find it again.
  Just wanted to mention that in the disent a number of deliberate acts which could be considered the taking of possession are named. It is suggested that a person may be taking posession of PD images if he opens additional pages, keeps them open in tabs, or does other things to indicate that he wants PD images to be on his screen. This seems to be a good way to preserve the intent of the statute in the Internet age.
  But even in this more liberal interpretion of possession, person would have to take some action to possess CP that appeared unexpectedly on his screen.
40. Re:Downloading? by David+Chappell · 2012-05-10 13:50 · Score: 1
  The question is: does one posses (in a legal sense) the contents of one's browser cache.
  That seems like an absurd question. Of course you do, generally speaking.
  I am not sure. I have been reading definitions of legal possession and they frequently require the possessor to excercise control over the object in order for it to be considered in his possesion.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_(law)
  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession
  http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p057.htm
  When I read this legal decision, I get the impression that the justices are reluctant to directly answer the question of whether a web browser user is in possession of any given file in his browser's cache. They say that he can't possibly be if he has never heard of the browser cache. Then the majority and the disenter separately advance their theories as to when a person gains possession of an image which has been displayed in his browser window. The majority says that he goes from seeing it to possessing it when he orders the computer to keep it (I am paraphrasing here). The disenter says that he comes into possession of it when he, after understanding the nature of the website, begins to use it actively.
  Nowhere can I find a statement by either the majority or the dissent which would suggest that a person who opened a web page with child pornography without knowing in advance what was on it has violated any laws, even technically.
  They do not specifically discuss whether a person who accidently opened a page with child pornography is legally oblidged to flush his browser cache. It would of course be a good idea and if one had did so it could be proof that one deliberately rejected possession of the images. But, I think a court might decide that a person who left it in the cache (along with thousands of other files with meaningless names) until it had expired had abandoned it and thus not taken possession.
  We will have to wait and see how this developes.
41. Re:Downloading? by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-11 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  They do not specifically discuss whether a person who accidently opened a page with child pornography is legally oblidged to flush his browser cache. It would of course be a good idea and if one had did so it could be proof that one deliberately rejected possession of the images. But, I think a court might decide that a person who left it in the cache (along with thousands of other files with meaningless names) until it had expired had abandoned it and thus not taken possession.
  Perhaps so. It is a reasonable angle for a defense attorney to try. I think most judges and juries are so scared of CP that they would convict based upon the following simple series:
  Prosecutor: "Did you, accidentally or otherwise, use your computer to view one more images of child pornography?"
  [after some objections are overruled, the defendant will be reminded to answer with a yes or no]
  Defendant: "Yes, but..."
  Prosecutor: "Are you aware that Internet Explorer (and all major Web browsers) use a technology known as caching whereby images from the Internet are stored on your computer to speed up future downloads of the same page?"
  Defendant: "Well, I'm not sure"
  Prosecutor: "Have you ever been told by tech support to clear your browser's cookies and temporary internet files?"
  Defendant: "I believe so"
  Prosecutor: "Did you do that after viewing this child pornography?"
  Defendant: "I don't remember"
  Prosecutor: "The pictures were still there, so you either saved them intentionally or didn't bother to delete them. Which is it?"
  Defendant: "I guess I didn't think to clear my cache."
  Prosecutor: "So, you viewed child porn, were aware that it was still on your computer, and didn't take any action to remove it? That sounds like a clear-cut of possession to me"
  A good judge very well may see through this and but most won't. I think it will be immaterial soon enough because every law will get updated to criminalize the act of viewing (or requesting for the purpose of viewing, or something similar).
42. Re:Downloading? by David+Chappell · 2012-05-11 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Prosecutor: "So, you viewed child porn, were aware that it was still on your computer, and didn't take any action to remove it? That sounds like a clear-cut of possession to me"
  A good judge very well may see through this and but most won't. I think it will be immaterial soon enough because every law will get updated to criminalize the act of viewing (or requesting for the purpose of viewing, or something similar).
  I agree with you completely. Prosecutors try to shortcut the difficult process of proving possession all the time. And the laws will definitely have to be updated. Let's hope that when they are, the law makers focus on the acts of the human being and what he sees on his screen (as the judges in this case seem to have done) rather than the inner workings of his computer. I think the law makers should ask themselves "what would constitute possession of a pornagraphic magazine? What are the equivelent actions on the World Wide Web?" The dissenting judge in particular seems to be exploring this question.
Phew.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:39 · Score: 1

Now finally I can visit 4chan without getting nervous about knocks on the door.
1. Re:Phew.. by MarkGriz · 2012-05-10 01:49 · Score: 2
  
  Now finally I can visit 4chan without getting nervous about knocks on the door.
  There are far lesser reasons to avoid 4chan
  
  --
  Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
2. Re:Phew.. by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · 2012-05-10 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  If fear of knocks at the door hasn't kept him away, why would lesser reasons?
  
  --
  I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
rare common sense by arikol · 2012-05-10 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

The comment "Errr... just because he didn't download the pictures, how does this make it okay? He's still accessing child porn! " is absolutely true and correct.
HOWEVER the current laws in most of the western world make it too dangerous to report any questionable (or clearly illegal) content to the police as you then risk being charged yourself. This means that when you click on a thumbnail and find out that what pops up is NOT what you wanted (I hope) then your actions are: close tab, clear history, never speak of this again.
That doesn't help, because the illegal content will just stay accessible. We want this kind of crap closed down, and if we want to close it down then reporting the crime has to be safe.
This is, IMO, a rare common sense ruling that seems to take into account the societal value of the ruling (no matter whether the defendant was guilty or not)
1. Re:rare common sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Deleting all traces and pretending it never happened is still the safest and sanest route. Even the smallest chance of being labeled (officially or not) a pedo is too large.
2. Re:rare common sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  A national anonymous reporting would solve the issue of fear of reporting w/o loosening the laws to allow true pedos to escape justice by hiding behind this new "just viewing" defense.
  We need to be sure that this judgement does not allow the true criminals, those who create or enable the creation through payment (even if the payment is just via ad views) to continue to operate.
3. Re:rare common sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  Clear the history? You might want to do better than that. If somehow the authorities figure out that your IP was used (perhaps if they happen to raid/seize the server you accidentally accessed and then look through its logs...or plain and simple Big Brother) and they look for traces on your computer, chances are they will attempt to recover deleted files, since normally space is only marked as "ready to be overwritten" but still accessible if someone really wants it until it is actually overwritten. If the history is still accessible that way, your life is probably ruined.
4. Re:rare common sense by jamstar7 · 2012-05-10 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Again, great idea, however, it's still much much easier to bust the end user. They tend not to try to hide as much as the producer, and if the producer is overseas, local/Federal cops aren't going to be able to bust them anyways. Which headline sounds better, "Officials Arrest Child Porn Producer After 2 Year Investigation' or 'Officials Arrest Child Porn 'Ring'', when all you need to do to arrest the 'ring' is have half a dozen report tripping over a website?
  
  It's the War on Drugs all over again, as has been said here before. The more busts you make, the more 'effective' you're seen, and the bigger your budget gets.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
5. Re:rare common sense by blackicye · 2012-05-10 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Deleting all traces and pretending it never happened is still the safest and sanest route. Even the smallest chance of being labeled (officially or not) a pedo is too large.
  This is so totally true, making a report or having any personal connection whatsoever to pedo pornography is beyond stupid.
  What they need to do is so simple it's amazing they haven't implemented it yet.
  They need a totally anonymous reporting system for such websites, because they have no reason to want to know who the sender is, or what their
  intentions are except that they object to the exploitation of children, and want to prevent such sites from surviving and propagating this exploitation and abuse.
6. Re:rare common sense by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, completely, and the problem is not just the laws, it's also about a lack of complete discretion is potentially life-changing (or ruining). If you act to stop a crime, and the public hears about it, normally you'd be considered a hero. But with the case of child porn, it seems the immediate thought is "well, what were YOU doing looking at it, you creepy creeper!?!?" I think that child porn is such a hot button issue (and rightfully so) that it's not something a normal, rational person would want to ever, ever be involved with, even in an attempt to stop abuses. I think that needs to change in order to stop it. I'm not saying we should all go kiddie porn hunting to crusade for the righteous, but I am saying something needs to be done to shift the public mindset from "he saw it, he's guilty too!" to "man, I'm glad I didn't have to see it but props to that guy for reporting it." Maybe this is the first step.
  
  Personally, it feels pretty easy. My gut tells me that rape is horrible, murder is disgusting, pedophilia is terrifying, and child porn is twisted, all to similar degrees. I should be able to report evidence of any of the 4 without the police or the public looking at me with shifty eyes, but in the public eye, reporting child porn means you SAW child porn, which means you're a pervert, too. Even those cops that DO crawl the internet looking for abuses are smart enough to keep their identities hidden; I sure as hell wouldn't want people knowing I stare at naked kids all day, even if it's for honorable intentions.
  
  The only "child porn" I've ever witnessed was a co-worker showing me cartoons of "The Incredibles" family all banging each other. Pretty graphic, but hey, it's a cartoon. Still gave me a really oogy feeling and I wondered a bit at what the fuck else my co-worker was in to. I don't know if that'd qualify as something legally nefarious or not, but I DID know it was fucked right the hell up. Rather than call him out on it I felt it the wiser course, socially and perhaps legally, was also the cowardly one, and just told him "not interested, buddy." and ignored it. If that same thing happens for something that is clearly child porn, it's a bad thing, as a crime just went unreported.
  
  Oh, and if you ever got tricked by goatse or 2-girls-one-cup, then you could just as easily be tricked by a child porn link, so this judgement is something that was sorely needed.
7. Re:rare common sense by Sesostris+III · 2012-05-10 04:20 · Score: 2
  
  In the UK you can report "illegal" sites confidentially and even anonymously if you wish, through the Internet Watch Foundation.
  
  http://www.iwf.org.uk/
  
  I think they may keep the IP address for three months, but that is it.
  
  --
  You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
8. Re:rare common sense by blueg3 · 2012-05-10 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  It depends. I don't hear a lot of individuals reporting that they accidentally downloaded CP. However, IT guys that catch it on company computers (or in traffic logs, etc.) are generally very well-protected if they simply report it. Since often then only end up in that position when they're investigating problems that can turn into legal problems, trying to scrub the evidence and pretend it never existed is not really a smart choice.
9. Re:rare common sense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  It is not War on Drugs yet.
  You see, what we need to do to fight CP is to fight it the way we fight WoD. We attack countries and raze down crops. So unless we start burning alive all those under 18 in other countries we are not as committed to WoCP as honestly as we are to WoD.
  captcha: purged
10. Re:rare common sense by sjames · 2012-05-19 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's the best policy for most anything these days. Many times the person who reports a crime is automatically a 'person of interest' until proven otherwise.
You don't always know what you download by loufoque · 2012-05-10 01:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is backwards. You can't know what you've downloaded until you've seen it.
You could very well have downloaded child porn without noticing it.
This is essentially like taking to prison people who have child porn in their mail box.
1. Re:You don't always know what you download by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently the NY state law requires possession and the court ruled you can't be charged with possession if you didn't even know you had it. The federal law does not require possession but says there must be an intent to view the child porn.
2. Re:You don't always know what you download by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  You can't apply possession law to information. If you view it on the Internet, you also "possess" it in your cache. It's true that the cache generally wipes itself eventually, but information is an intangible. You also "possess" the image in your mind.
3. Re:You don't always know what you download by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Not very well could have. You probably have if you were involved in minor cracking scene circa 97/98. Or just searching around for warez without a good source.
  You have to remember -- we're dealing with the same officials that arrested a 17 year old girl for production for taking pictures of herself and then made her register as a sex offender (forever). They largely know NO sense of reason or justice. This is a refreshing break.
  About a decade ago, I stumbled onto a ... "trove" of filth on the Internet and went to report it through somebody's report internet crime form... The snuff probably all moved to freenet since then... but at the time, I had the abundance of caution to do so after borrowing the address (ifconfig eth0 hwaddr... ) of a system on the other side of a class B that I knew was down for upgrades for a week (nobody had good network logging. I'll let you guess what sort of environment I was in). Two hours later my firewall logs went apeshit -- I got pinged and then portscanned from two netblocks wholly owned by a law enforcement three letter agency. All the traffic got dropped immediately, and after the third scan the address was automatically banned wholly -- (that's what the idiots get for using a naive syn scan). I sure hope the sysadmin didn't get any awkward phone calls.
  The (cr|h)acker community foolishly thought they could exploit this... zealotry. Because they know hew how to clear and wipe browser caches, and LEOs were routinely confused by the difference between temp files and slack space. I suspect they still are.
  At least two of the really small porn/warez linked redistribution sites used to have 0x0 iframes with one or two not nice things pulled into them (from remote unowned sites) to get them onto the hard drive of any incompetent "mole" in the theory that people could defend against a raid by pointing out the agent was in possession and challenge the character... Found at least one of them when the owner of the pulled content thought he could sneak a virus into the iframe...
  It was really an absurdly stupid idea, and I don't think anything -- even a trial ever came of it that I heard of.
  And yeah...stuff is backwards. Some of the earliest cases on AOL were tried by the feds in VA whenever the VA laws were tougher than the local jurisdiction. Reasoning being that the email went through servers in VA...
  So I'm pretty sure you can look forward to some of the DCS1000 centers that pretty much are publicly known to exist to be moved to places with really tough laws.... Like say... Utah.
4. Re:You don't always know what you download by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, they've really made the case nice for P2P because it's fucked if you do, fucked if you don't. If you call the cops saying you "accidentally" downloaded kiddie porn, that's a confession for possession. If you don't call them, you risk than sometimes in the next X months the police will be on your door arresting you for kiddie porn downloads. What's funny is that it's no threat to us that actually want it, because we all download over open or hacked wifis or proxies. Hardly anybody is so stupid they do it with their butts hanging out like the people who accidentally download it instead of something legal. But it makes nice cannon fodder to keep the police busy, probably ruins a lot of innocent families too.
  To take one example, Kylie Freeman aka Vicky has a video called "britneys-01.mpg" because well, the music is Britney Spears. The people who download it might be a little surprised by the "music video" though. Same goes for a lot of that shit, visit a kiddie porn site? Sure over a hacked wifi over TOR in a browser with all scripting and plugins disabled, I'm safe. It's the people who accidentally visit and have their IP in plain sight in the server logs that are fucked. In that sense, sure you now can report us but that's not a big deal. People do that all the time anyway, using the same anonymity tools we do but they don't stop us anymore than the RIAA/MPAA/BSA stops piracy. They've lost the war, nobody's going to tell the general public that though.
5. Re:You don't always know what you download by blueg3 · 2012-05-10 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Prior to this, you are considered to possess all data that is stored on storage media that you control. That is, you "possess" every file on your hard drive.
  You could claim that you "possess" remembered images, but considering you can't prove what people remember, it has no legal value.
  Information certainly is tangible in that it has physical manifestations. Your bits on disk have a physical manifestation that enables the information they represent to be "possessed".
  This ruling more or less says that data stored on your hard drive as the result of an automatic behavior of your computer does not qualify as possessed; it must be put on disk as the result of a willful act to possess the data.
6. Re:You don't always know what you download by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  You could very well have downloaded child porn without noticing it.
  Especially if you will visit Sweden/Europe in the future. There even CARTOONS of naked children are considered child porn. (Case: Simon Lundström vs Sweden http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10349/ )
Can pirates legally download to a temp folder also by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:41 · Score: 1

If we're distinguishing between illegal-intentional-downloads and legal-unintentional-downloads by the location the download is saved to, then ANY "temp" files should be exempt, right?
Twice in two weeks by pellik · 2012-05-10 01:43 · Score: 2

First a New York judge rules that IP addresses are insufficient for copyright cases, now this? I'm proud of you, New York!
1. Re:Twice in two weeks by funwithBSD · 2012-05-10 02:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Proof 2012 is end of the world... Judges making technically savvy rulings.
  
  --
  Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
2. Re:Twice in two weeks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  How is this technically savvy? How do you technically differentiate "downloading" a picture from just "watching" a picture online. By checking if the file is in the browser's cache?
  
  What happen if I make my default download directory the same as the browser's cache directory.
Which is how it should be by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 01:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they are not paying, they are not contributing to the abuse of children, so what is the justification for imprisoning them? As I remember it, the reason we imprison people for possessing child pornography is that we assume they paid for it; so if someone just browsed to a child porn website, paid nothing for it and just looked at the pictures, why should they be tossed in jail (where tax dollars are used to house, feed, and protect them)?

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Which is how it should be by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You are misremembering. The justification is 'Ewww, CP'.
2. Re:Which is how it should be by jythie · 2012-05-10 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Moral panics do not need justification, all they need is outrage and 'reasons' become 'common sense'.
3. Re:Which is how it should be by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-05-10 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  In the UK, the term "creating a market" is used to justify ruining the lives of regular Jo sent the over-the-top equivalent of Goatse in a link. Here, it's List 99 and prison for viewing indecent images of a minor. List 99 and prison for both a 17 year old sending a pic of herself to her 18 year old boyfriend, and the boyfriend himself, doing exactly what they are legally allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes. You can't inform the police if you do get sent such a thing maliciously, because... Yup, List 99 and prison.
  
  You cannot escape the outrageous leaps of idiocy people will go to when the phrase "protect the children" is intoned. I'm glad at least one place has seen sense; I just wish it was here.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
4. Re:Which is how it should be by gstoddart · 2012-05-10 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think "paid for" has ever been the threshold for determining if you've been viewing kiddie porn or if it's illegal.
  
  the reason we imprison people for possessing child pornography is that we assume they paid for it
  Ummm ... really? I think we imprison people for possessing child pornography is because it's illegal to possess it. Not because they paid for it.
  This decision is more about the threshold for 'downloaded' and basically says an image in your cache isn't enough to face legal charges because you may have stumbled into it without any intention to see that crap. So a malicious link that isn't what you think it is isn't enough to land you in jail as a sex offender. Having found some of this crap on usenet once, I think this ruling makes sense if accidentally finding it doesn't make you a felon.
  This has nothing to do with if you've paid for it -- it's not like they're trying to make sure you pay your taxes on it.
  Or are you seriously claiming that child pornography would be OK if you got it for free? Because you'll truly be well into some creepy territory if you're claiming that.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:Which is how it should be by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Did the site have advertisements? If so, they paid for it. The site profits when they visit.
6. Re:Which is how it should be by Kjella · 2012-05-10 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  If they are not paying, they are not contributing to the abuse of children, so what is the justification for imprisoning them? As I remember it, the reason we imprison people for possessing child pornography is that we assume they paid for it
  You're assuming money is the only driver which would be quite stupid. For one they don't have to get paid by you directly, they can run ads and pop-ups and pop-unders and sell access for exploit scripts or whatever else sleazeball activity that won't care where the clicks come from and new content drives traffic. Secondly there's trade, obviously trade in itself is purely digital but somewhere, somehow that creates an incentive to "print your own money" by making it yourself.
  Third there's simple popularity. Take for example all the people making videos for YouTube or RedTube, obviously they're doing it for the attention even though they don't get paid. Hit counters, comments, everything contributes to the impression that "wow, this is popular - people want it" which is enough for some. Particularly if you're on a site that sells it, a visitor that doesn't sign up is in the "interested, but not tempted enough" category - maybe they need something better to get a better conversion rate? Or simply as part of a normalization process, we're many that feel this way.
  Maybe ideally if you could take it entirely without anyone knowing, nothing that feeds back into the system than maybe. But to me is seems pretty hard to not give away any interest at all, and an interested person is a potential.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
7. Re:Which is how it should be by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  Ummm ... really? I think we imprison people for possessing child pornography is because it's illegal to possess it. Not because they paid for it.
  That law would have been struck down on constitutional grounds if it were not for the argument that people who possess child pornography have, by obtaining it, encouraged its production. As an argument, that made sense decades ago, when child pornography was hard to obtain and could not be found at no cost online. Laws need justification; child pornography laws are no exception to this rule, and if the justification for banning possession is not that it encourages production, then what is the justification?
  
  Or are you seriously claiming that child pornography would be OK if you got it for free?
  Well, let's put it this way: who is harming children? Clearly, anyone who produces child pornography is harming children, as evidenced by the images and videos they produce (which show them sexually abusing a child). People who pay for child porn to be produced are equally culpable, I think that should go without saying, and that includes people who pay by trading their own child pornography.
  
  Yet someone who downloads a child porn video at no cost, without having contacted its producer or anyone in the supply chain (say, someone who downloaded the video anonymously over a P2P network) is not so clearly contributing to the abuse of children. People who produce child pornography are not sitting there saying, "I think I will give out evidence of my crimes to anonymous strangers on the Internet, without asking for anything in return!"
  
  Now, if you have a good reason why possessing child pornography is the problem in and of itself, as opposed to it being a problem because it encourages child abuse, let us hear it.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
8. Re:Which is how it should be by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Take for example all the people making videos for YouTube or RedTube, obviously they're doing it for the attention even though they don't get paid
  This is different for one very important reason: you do not risk spending the rest of your life in prison when you upload a video of you and your adult lover having sex. Child pornography is different, since child pornography images or videos are evidence of a serious crime, evidence which will almost certainly be used against its producer should the police find him. That risk basically eliminates any possibility of a child porn producer releasing such material without demanding something in return; not necessarily money, it could be child porn traded for other child porn.
  
  Particularly if you're on a site that sells it
  If nobody buys, such a site would simply disappear. Visitors who do not buy are a risk -- they have seen the evidence of a crime without paying, and might make a report to the police or otherwise create a problem. This is not a market where "samples" make any economic sense, and sites that offer samples should be expected to ultimately die off (except perhaps those offering samples on "safe" message boards e.g. Dreamboard, which was busted recently).
  
  maybe they need something better to get a better conversion rate?
  Again, without at least some paying customers, such an operation could not continue for long. Sure, they might try to attract new visitors, but the simple truth is that people who do not pay are people who are encouraging the site to shut down. It is a very risky business to be in -- not the sort of business where you want people to look around, then leave without paying.
  
  Maybe ideally if you could take it entirely without anyone knowing
  Almost certainly -- someone else noted that child pornography is posted to Usenet without encryption, and child pornography on P2P filesharing networks remains a problem. I would guess that there are a substantial number of people out there who are in possession of child pornography they received secretly and anonymously.
  
  But to me is seems pretty hard to not give away any interest at all, and an interested person is a potential.
  A potential paying customer (payment here might mean barter) -- and that is exactly my point. Someone has to be willing to pay for that sort of thinking to even happen. If nobody is willing to pay, if people do nothing but download child pornography without "contributing" to that market in some (economic) way, the market will die. The demand for child pornography will never disappear, it is a psychological phenomenon; the market relies on that demand resulting in some kind of trade, and that trade is what drives the cycle of child abuse.
  
  Everything you said about enticing people and advertising serves the purpose of getting people to engage in trade. Once that trade has happened, there is no question that the people involved have encouraged child abuse in some way. Before that trade has happened, it is not clear to me how anyone has encouraged any child abuse.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
9. Re:Which is how it should be by gstoddart · 2012-05-10 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Now, if you have a good reason why possessing child pornography is the problem in and of itself, as opposed to it being a problem because it encourages child abuse, let us hear it.
  How about you tell me how possessing child pornography is a good thing that can be justified? Simply owning those images encourages child abuse -- at least, that's the position of the law, and not one I'm inclined to disagree with.
  How, exactly, does possessing child pornography not encourage child abuse? Why should it be legal to possess those images?
  Child pornography is a strict liability law:
  
  The laws regulating Child Pornography are strict liability laws. This means that you have violated the laws when you knowingly create, distribute or view material considered to be child pornography.
  There's no wiggle room or ambiguity -- it's like statutory rape, that 12 year old can't consent no matter how much you want her to. This court ruling just gives a little more room for people who accidentally find it.
  But if you seek it out and download it, I still agree it should be illegal.
  But, hey, if you want to make your NAMBLA pitch here, go ahead ... I'm sure that would be fascinating. One so rarely hears someone defending child pornography. It could be amusing. But I'm sure as hell not going to defend why child pornography should be illegal.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
10. Re:Which is how it should be by qbast · 2012-05-10 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Actually this should be rewarded. MPAA already proved that downloading content without paying causes bazilions dollars of losses. Think of the children, ruin CP producers!
11. Re:Which is how it should be by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 03:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How about you tell me how possessing child pornography is a good thing that can be justified?
  First of all, I did not say that possessing child pornography is a "good thing." What I said is that there must be a justification for making it illegal, and that the original justification may need to be updated for the reality of this century.
  
  Simply owning those images encourages child abuse
  How is that? At one time, owning child pornography images meant that the images were very likely to have been paid for by the owner, so that statement followed. I am not sure that owning child pornography still implies that the owner paid for or otherwise encouraged its production.
  
  Now, if you have some other reason for that statement being true, why not share that reason with the world?
  
  Why should it be legal to possess those images?
  How about the fact that any law which forbids a person from possessing an image is a law that places limits on free speech rights? Those rights are not unlimited, but any limit that is placed on freedom speech must be justified, and the limit must be as minimal as possible. Producing child pornography is an example of a justifiable limit on free speech rights: to produce child pornography, a child has to be harmed.
  
  There's no wiggle room or ambiguity
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography
  
  make your NAMBLA pitch
  Oh look, name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Yes, clearly anyone who thinks that the laws surrounding child pornography require more justification than, "OH MY GOD PEDOPHILES" must be a member of NAMBLA.
  
  I'm sure as hell not going to defend why child pornography should be illegal.
  Oh, OK, then why are we even bothering with this conversation? You think that some laws require no justification, and you will not even expend two seconds of mental effort to figure out why it makes sense for thousands of men to be imprisoned, at tax payer expense. I guess the conversation basically ends there, right?
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
12. Re:Which is how it should be by gstoddart · 2012-05-10 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  How is that? At one time, owning child pornography images meant that the images were very likely to have been paid for by the owner, so that statement followed. I am not sure that owning child pornography still implies that the owner paid for or otherwise encouraged its production.
  The illegality has never been based on having paid for it. I don't know why you keep bringing that up. It's spurious, and irrelevant. It's a complete red-herring.
  The images are a record of a criminal act. So in the same way a snuff film would be illegal, having a depiction of an illegal act is just propagating the illegal act. Same for statutory rape.
  
  Producing child pornography is an example of a justifiable limit on free speech rights: to produce child pornography, a child has to be harmed.
  So then why are you looking for justification of why it shouldn't be illegal to possess child pornography? Either you accept what you just wrote on face value, or you think it should be otherwise. If the latter, please enlighten us.
  
  Oh look, name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
  Hardly -- you're the one asking me to explain why possession of child pornography should be illegal. Which means you're either in favor of it, or engaging in a highly abstract logic exercise and think the rest of us should play along.
  
  You think that some laws require no justification
  I never said that, and you know it. What I did say is that since I agree with those laws as being fairly self evident, I have no intention of defending them to someone who feels like I should be the one to justify them. For the same reason I don't feel the need to justify laws against beating your wife, murder, or many other things.
  You're the one saying it should be okay to have child pornography unless you bought it, as if the act of purchasing it is what exclusively makes the possession of it illegal. I can't even begin to fathom why you might differentiate on the basis of if you paid for it or not.
  
  you will not even expend two seconds of mental effort to figure out why it makes sense for thousands of men to be imprisoned, at tax payer expense
  OK, if you're the kind of person who wants to keep pictures which commemorate and perpetuate an illegal act, then your personal culpability for that illegal act is the same as if you were involved. Short of fantasizing about doing the exact same kind of illegal act, I fail to see why you should be in lawful possession of those images.
  Since I have yet to hear of why this should be protected speech, or qualify as 'art', I fail to see why this shouldn't lead to those thousands of men being imprisoned -- in the same way that if you're keeping a video of the gang rape of a 12 year old girl, I fail to see how that has any merit or legal standing.
  You're the one saying we should be having the argument to the contrary, but you've yet to say a single thing in defense of that position. So, again, please, enlighten us with how you believe that possession of child pornography you didn't buy should be any different from stuff you downloaded for free?
  Before you accuse me of ad hominem attacks and being closed minded, why don't you actually say something in defense of your own position? So far you've mostly just insisted that everyone else justify why it is illegal.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
13. Re:Which is how it should be by sourcerror · 2012-05-10 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  What if the child porn site makes its money from ads?
14. Re:Which is how it should be by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  How about you tell me how possessing child pornography is a good thing that can be justified?
  
  How about you tell me how this is justification for outlawing something?
  
  How, exactly, does possessing child pornography not encourage child abuse? Why should it be legal to possess those images?
  In other words, you are claiming that a piece of information is dangerous and thus should be outlawed: The excuse used by tyrants everywhere to justify attacks on freedom of expression.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
15. Re:Which is how it should be by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 04:44 · Score: 2
  
  The illegality has never been based on having paid for it
  Yes it is; the law covering possession of child pornography is an extension of the law covering the distribution of child pornography, which itself was found to be constitution because distribution encourages the creation of those images. The entire point of these laws is to attack the production of child pornography, not to outlaw people fantasizing about child abuse. These laws were written, and the relevant court cases were decided, at a time when the only way to procure child pornography was to pay for it.
  
  In fact, the early cases specifically found that the government was not trying to regulate what people think, and was only trying to protect children from being harmed during the production of child pornography. The only reason possessing child pornography was made illegal was to fight distribution chains, which in turn were only made illegal to fight production. Without the economic aspect -- that is, the trade or payment -- none of these laws could have been upheld.
  
  So then why are you looking for justification of why it shouldn't be illegal to possess child pornography?
  I have, repeatedly: the purpose of child pornography laws is to protect children, and someone who possesses child pornography is not necessarily someone who has encouraged harm to children. The distribution of child pornography is substantially different today than it was in the 1980s. People obtain child pornography without paying it all the time, and unless you are arguing that every time an image is copied or viewed the children in that image are being harmed, I am not really seeing how you are connecting the possession of child pornography with its production.
  
  What I did say is that since I agree with those laws as being fairly self evident
  Laws that ban people from possessing particular images are self evident and do not need any further justification? That is an interesting view to take...
  
  You're the one saying it should be okay to have child pornography unless you bought it, as if the act of purchasing it is what exclusively makes the possession of it illegal. I can't even begin to fathom why you might differentiate on the basis of if you paid for it or not.
  ...because paying for it encourages people to produce it i.e. you are paying for people to abuse children? Taking the payment aspect (which includes non-monetary trades) out of there, and what are you left with? A person who possesses images, and nothing more.
  
  if you're the kind of person who wants to keep pictures which commemorate and perpetuate an illegal act, then your personal culpability for that illegal act is the same as if you were involved.
  So people who have pictures of concentration camps are culpable for genocide? That is basically what you just said: if someone retains pictures of illegal acts, they should be considered guilty of committing those acts.
  
  You're the one saying we should be having the argument to the contrary, but you've yet to say a single thing in defense of that position.
  
  Do I have to come over there and shout it in your ear? Someone who did not pay for child pornography did not encourage any child abuse, and therefore does not need to be imprisoned. Simple and straightforward, because in my view of the world the only people who should be imprisoned are people who either harm others or join a conspiracy to harm others, and only when it can be proved that they were knowingly part of that conspiracy. Some guy who downloaded some child pornography without paying for it, trading for it, etc. is not someone who has harmed others.
  
  I am not going to repeat the argument again. Come back when you have more than, "it is self evident," to explain why possessing child pornography is harmful in and of itself.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
16. Re:Which is how it should be by MikeBabcock · 2012-05-10 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Something doesn't have to be good to not be illegal. You do believe in a free country right? What you do on your computer in the privacy of your bedroom shouldn't have a damn thing to do with anyone but you ... unless you cause harm.
  So if you're not causing harm, what's the problem, no matter how disgusting it is?
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
17. Re:Which is how it should be by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-10 05:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The images are a record of a criminal act. So in the same way a snuff film would be illegal, having a depiction of an illegal act is just propagating the illegal act. Same for statutory rape.
  Not true. It is not propagating the illegal act, and even if it were, that is not the reason that it's illegal. I know this for an absolute fact because there are hundreds of other crimes for which it's not illegal to have a depiction of the crime. If your logic was sound it would work in all cases, for all crimes. It doesn't and it isn't.
  Snuff films and child porn are illegal because people who like watching them frighten us, not because the acts depicted is illegal.
18. Re:Which is how it should be by loneDreamer · 2012-05-10 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Moreover, with "possession" meaning just having files on your hard drive it becomes way too easy to destroy the life of an innocent. If I hate you (or if I'm bored), nothing easier than to put something on your drive and denounce you. I remember a case like that where a student almost ruined a teacher. Also, in the hands of a teenager a camera become as dangerous as any gun.
19. Re:Which is how it should be by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-10 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  How about you tell me how possessing child pornography is a good thing that can be justified?
  In someone's opinion. But I don't believe things should be banned just because you find them gross in the first place. It's not on others to explain why something should be legal; it's on you, the person making/advocating for these laws.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
20. Re:Which is how it should be by serviscope_minor · 2012-05-10 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  The images are a record of a criminal act. So in the same way a snuff film would be illegal, having a depiction of an illegal act is just propagating the illegal act.
  You know, that's not generally true, otherwise (for instance) the images of the 9/11 attacks would be illegal. Those are, after all images of a criminal act.
  OK, if you're the kind of person who wants to keep pictures which commemorate and perpetuate an illegal act, then your personal culpability for that illegal act is the same as if you were involved. Short of fantasizing about doing the exact same kind of illegal act, I fail to see why you should be in lawful possession of those images
  So, you are accusing the wikipedia editors of fantasizing doing all sorts of illegal acts from misdemeanours (graffitti) to genocide?
  Your definitions and justifications do not hold up to simple inspection. Please try again with something a bit more specific than "illegal acts".
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
21. Re:Which is how it should be by scot4875 · 2012-05-10 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  The images are a record of a criminal act. So in the same way a snuff film would be illegal, having a depiction of an illegal act is just propagating the illegal act. Same for statutory rape. ... if you're the kind of person who wants to keep pictures which commemorate and perpetuate an illegal act
  Ahh, so when a security camera captures a crime (you know, like they're designed to do), the captured images should be destroyed because it's a criminal act? And the person who runs the cameras should be somehow criminally responsible for them being generated?
  
  So far you've mostly just insisted that everyone else justify why it is illegal.
  You're the one making claims that it *should* be legal. By default, the null position is that everything is legal. The responsibility is yours to justify why specific things should be illegal. If that justification has already been made, then it should be pretty easy for you to at least regurgitate it, right?
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
good by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 01:45 · Score: 2

now will someone please go after the child porn spammers on the newsgroups?
yes, i know, difficult, but it's ridiculous

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:good by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  There are still child porn spammers in newsgroups? It could be that I only really read a handful of technical groups, but I have not seen such things in pretty long time...
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:good by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-10 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Incidentally, are the motivations of these spammers known? Are they just trolling the group? Providing a first-hit-is-free to prospective customers? Is this the kiddie-porn equivalent of numbers stations, indiscriminately broadcasting a signal intended for only a few recipients?
3. Re:good by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  you have to go to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica...
  they spam everything there
  you're innocently looking for your pictures of lactating heavily pierced transvestite dwarves and... GAH
  actually, i shouldn't joke, it's not funny
  so thank god for this ruling, because living in the state of new york, and the ruling directly applies to me: i've gotten child porn images on my computer without any intention of doing so, and this is how: newsgroups
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
4. Re:good by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well, a few years ago there was a large group of people who used anonymous remailers to send encrypted images to each other over Usenet. Most of them managed to remain anonymous, as far as I know, and law enforcement was only able to identify a small number of the participants or their victims. That was encrypted, however; some years ago I saw cleartext advertisements for child porn posted on Usenet, but it was a while ago.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
5. Re:good by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Oh those groups. My Usenet provider does not even carry binaries groups (thus allowing them to run a free service), so I guess I have been shielded from such things. A few years ago I saw cleartext advertisements for child porn on some newsgroup, I thought perhaps you were referring to that sort of spam...
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
6. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  Incidentally, are the motivations of these spammers known?
  
  If that spam contains email addresses or urls, then they are almost certainly sting operations. My understanding is that there is no widespread CP "industry" collecting actual revenue anymore, it's all hype.
7. Re:Good by blueg3 · 2012-05-10 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Possessing. Technically, it's not illegal to view CP. It's just illegal to possess or transmit it, which makes viewing it a little tricky.
8. Re:Good by doston · 2012-05-10 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Possessing. Technically, it's not illegal to view CP. It's just illegal to possess or transmit it, which makes viewing it a little tricky.
  That's untrue. It's illegal (rightly) to view it, it's just not possible to prove intent to view with browser cache alone. Viewing child pornography is very illegal.
9. Re:Good by blueg3 · 2012-05-10 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's entirely true in New York. Federally, it's illegal to access with intent. However, access isn't strictly the same as view. (On a computer, access is basically the same as view if it's your computer.)
10. Re:Good by Arker · 2012-05-10 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  That clearly isnt true. If it were, it would be impossible to prosecute the crime. The judge, jury, and both sides lawyers HAVE to view the material if there is to be a trial.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Incredible by Sparticus789 · 2012-05-10 01:48 · Score: 1

Two smart court rulings in the same state in the same month? Hell must have frozen over and changed it's name to "Fluffy Bunny"

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Affirmative act... by gstrickler · 2012-05-10 01:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's the key phrase. Stumbling upon it is not sufficient, but taking action to save those images is. While I didn't see this point addressed, continuing to view other images on that site, or logging into a site and viewing a significant amount of CP images could be interpreted as an affirmative, so I wouldn't say this is strictly limited to "downloading" or possession. This simply makes it clear that incidental access is not make one a violator. Sounds like a very sane ruling in an area that often goes overboard "for the children".

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
1. Re:Affirmative act... by Loosifur · 2012-05-10 02:14 · Score: 2
  
  Let me first say that I'm in favor of this ruling, especially as a friend of mine is currently serving 5 years in prison because of child porn that was posted in a regular ol' legal porn trading forum he frequented.
  If your intent is to look at child porn, there is no reason under the terms of this law why you couldn't go to a site with child porn, view it, and access it later simply by opening the file from your browser cache. Provided that you don't clear the cache, it's still there. Distribution would be the same vis a vis illegality and risk of being caught, but if you ran a child porn site/service/whatever, there's no reason there couldn't be some sort of quid pro quo arrangement whereby someone could safely access child porn while also compensating the pornographer.
  Again, I think this is a good ruling, but I also think that there's a pretty big loophole that could be exploited. I don't believe that it will make a difference in the actual amount of child exploitation that happens, but I do think it will help keep people from being branded as a sick pedo because they went to some of the seedier (but legal) corners of the Internet, which makes it worthwhile.
  
  --
  This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
2. Re:Affirmative act... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  While I didn't see this point addressed, continuing to view other images on that site, or logging into a site and viewing a significant amount of CP images could be interpreted as an affirmative
  No, it shouldn't.
  Unless the amount of content is over 50% of cached objects on said pages, it should never count as affirmative.
  And even then, it should be scrutinized to high hell and back.
  It could easily be a case that the site in question has terrible moderation, or even bad moderation at a certain time (which is a problem with the internet since it is global)
  And what of the poor folks who download one thing and end up with a ton of CP instead?
  What's that, MIB3? Instead of downloading a several gig film, he ends up with several gigs of images and possibly small videos.
  That'd be horrible. But worse, the poor person could get locked up with intent to consume child pornography when in fact he was just a case of "Another hopeless film pirate."
  And you'd better believe the MAFIAA would twist the hell out of the law to make them look even worse and get them put on all sorts of lists.
  This sort of stuff needs to stop.
  It isn't illegal to see a person being killed. Entire websites are up with gore on them. (probably even kids too!)
  Why then is it illegal for people to see this? People are being hurt and abused, but you never done it. Why should you suffer because someone else was tormenting a child, or slicing their head off?
  These kids might even be found and rescued if they can figure out locations in content. (long shot, but anything is better than nothing)
  Just burying it and smashing your hard drive with a SUN isn't going to help the issue. Reporting it and getting the source dealt with is much better.
  There are plenty of companies around various countries that help with the effort. But their effort, likewise, is being fucked with because stupid laws are interfering with their work.
  Look at the whole Facebook thing recently, they have been helping with the effort recently by following up reports of abuse and forwarding them to NCMEC was it, yeah that one.
  Just a shame that it is only in law that this is changing.
  The damage has already been done to society by idiots.
  If you are viewing CP, intentional or not, you are the rapist as far as most are concerned.
  Don't even try argue logic with them, they don't know how to logic.
3. Re:Affirmative act... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's not really a loophole.
  The burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser. If you don't leave any evidence they're not supposed to be able to convict you.
4. Re:Affirmative act... by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you're a savvy enough pedophile to view the image from your browser cache, you're also likely savvy enough to cover your tracks. Viewing from the cache is no more difficult than than moving all incriminating evidence to a disposable thumb drive, and even having it in the cache is a clue to law enforcement, whether or not it's actual admissible evidence. I don't think this law is creating any "exploits" that don't already exist.
5. Re:Affirmative act... by http · 2012-05-10 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Only now, backing up your cache (as part of your home directory) periodically is no longer merely inefficient - it's liable.
  
  --
  If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
  3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
Intent Matters by Hydrian · 2012-05-10 01:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

While this does give a loophole to pedophiles, I think it is an acceptable risk. Just having a 'child porn' photo in you browser cache should not be enough evidence to charge you as a pedophile. I know here in the USA, even being charged with a 'child porn' related crime is devastating. It can ruin your career whether you are guilty or not. How many times have you had a unexpected pop up from porn site or virus/trojan infected site that displayed possibly illegal content. Also this helps the people who are interested in something else on a site but the site also happens to have under age material also. This is a important because what if some add banner shows some underage content. In the past, this could have been considered enough evidence.
The big thing here is that viewing (browser cache) doesn't necessarily prove intent.

--
No good deed goes unpunished.
1. Re:Intent Matters by DerekLyons · 2012-05-10 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  How many times have you had a unexpected pop up from porn site or virus/trojan infected site that displayed possibly illegal content.
  Not once in all my years of browsing some pretty shady corners of the web.
  
  Seriously, CP providers learned pretty early on to go at least semi-underground and to not make themselves or their customers visible targets.
2. Re:Intent Matters by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-10 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  While this does give a loophole to pedophiles, I think it is an acceptable risk.
  Agreed. As a matter of fact I would rather see people getting away with downloading CP through some "loophole" than see people who accidentally come across it (uh, no pun intended) have their life ruined because of it. I'm not convinced that they are the same as the people who actually abuse children. I'm not convinced any significant number of the latter will be caught using methods targeted for the former. And I'm not convinced that the prison terms we give to the latter (and justly so) are going to be worthwhile or beneficial, either to them or to society on the whole.
  From a theoretical medical/psychological standpoint it's no different than any number of other addictions: massive quantities of happy drugs are produced by the body during an orgasm. These will very quickly condition a psychological dependence on whatever was being done, or watched, immediately in the context of the orgasm. The addict will likely feel completely miserable about their addiction, which only makes it that much stronger since they know they can return to the addiction for a momentary dose of their happy drugs. Putting the addict in prison will only turn them into an unhireable ex-con who's that much more miserable than before if and when they're finally released.
  It's a dangerous game, and the only winning move is not to play: One fetish grows blasé due to over-stimulation and something new has to be found. The cycle can be halted and prevented from moving downward to less acceptable and even illegal fetishes if the fetish is reined in, such that an occasional guilty indulgence still feels risqué. When something once-forbidden starts to become routine and unexciting, new forbidden fruits start looking tasty.
3. Re:Intent Matters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  This is a complicated matter. If you sniff network traffic, how do you know you "watch" or you "download" the file?
  
  Thin line there, is that if you "store" files in the browser's cache directory, you're safe to say you view, but didn't download?
  
  I sincerely don't understand how this differentiation can be technically done.
4. Re:Intent Matters by nukenerd · 2012-05-10 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  DerekLyons wrote :- Not once [had a unexpected pop up from porn site .. that displayed possibly illegal content] in all my years of browsing some pretty shady corners of the web
  
  Hard to believe that. I have looked at porn sites, and most of them turn out to be directories of other porn sites that also turn out to be directories (the InterWebs is ridiculously awash with directories in all areas). Following a link often leads to nothing like you would expect, like you might click on a thumbnail link that promises big tits and find it leads to a S&M directory or a small tits directory, or most likely another general directory. Step back and click the same thumbnail again and it takes you somewehere else at random. The Joy of Javascript I suppose.
  
  The point is that you cannot predict where a link will take you. I have unintentionally found myself in a directory with thumbnails that distinctly look like under-age sex, with names like "Barely Legal Teens". At least they did not claim to be CP, but I am not sure how a court would decide whether it is.
  
  I back out of it, but I don't know what it might leave in my cache.
5. Re:Intent Matters by DerekLyons · 2012-05-10 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hard to believe that. I have looked at porn sites, and most of them turn out to be directories of other porn sites that also turn out to be directories (the InterWebs is ridiculously awash with directories in all areas).
  Then, quite frankly, you've been pretty dammed inept at "looking at porn sites"
  
  The point is that you cannot predict where a link will take you. I have unintentionally found myself in a directory with thumbnails that distinctly look like under-age sex, with names like "Barely Legal Teens". At least they did not claim to be CP, but I am not sure how a court would decide whether it is.
  Since the question posed by the grandparent was about popups, your point is pretty much irrelevant.
  
  And since "barely legal" material can be bought at newsstands across the country, and rented/bought at video places across the country... you're pretty much inept at understanding porn genres too.
Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 01:54 · Score: 0

In the event that a popup with a child porn image occurs, people should not wear a scarlet letter for life. Years ago, such a popup occurred on my spyware ridden PC. I almost puked, but it would be unfathomable that I be jailed or imprisoned in addition to a memory that I wish I could forget.
The authorities need to focus on the real criminals and not people that report images found on their system.
a common sense extension of real-world precedent by bitt3n · 2012-05-10 01:55 · Score: 1

driving slowly by the playground is legal, just don't load up your van

--
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Re:Can pirates legally download to a temp folder a by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-10 01:58 · Score: 2

If we're distinguishing between illegal-intentional-downloads and legal-unintentional-downloads by the location the download is saved to, then ANY "temp" files should be exempt, right?
As is not uncommon in legal proceedings, the court is interested in the person's intent. Architecturally, something being stashed in a temporary cache of some flavor certainly counts as evidence in favor of it being 'unintentional'; but that is hardly equivalent to a stirring cry of "/tmp? He must go free!"

If it were discovered(by inspection of your browser's list of downloaded files, or by an expert witness' determination that the saves in the 'browser cache' don't actually follow the correct structure conventions for resource caches produced by that browser, or by looking at files-recently-opened as stored in the OS or some image viewer, say) that you were intentionally downloading and storing things in a normally unintentional location, the location would not save you.

It really isn't fundamentally different from any other attempt by a court at a finding of fact about whether something was intentional or not(which comes up a lot, in degrees of murder, attempted murder vs. assault, treble damages, etc.) Evidence in favor of an 'unintentional' finding doesn't have any legal bearing in itself, it is merely a clue by which to attempt to determine the defendant's intent state.
Don't worry by paiute · 2012-05-10 02:01 · Score: 1

The NT legislature is working right now on a law to make even seeing CP illegal.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
1. Re:Don't worry by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  The federal law already does. 18 USC 2252A (a)(5)(B) covers someone who "knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography..." However, prosecuting someone under this requires demonstration of intent and knowledge.
Judges who actually followed the law?! by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 02:02 · Score: 4, Informative

"Errr... just because he didn't download the pictures, how does this make it okay? He's still accessing child porn! "
The bulk of the charges against him were confirmed and he'll still suffer heavy punishment. However, two counts were overturned because the law requires you to knowingly posses or obtain images and these two charges relied on data from his browser's web cache. The prosecution failed to prove that he was aware of the cache and how it works, so he couldn't have knowingly obtained or possessed those images. The law does not make it illegal to simply look at the images, whether on a billboard, a neighbor's back porch, or a web site. The judges agreed that child pornography is an abomination, but the majority said it was up to the Legislature to declare merely viewing to be a crime.

However the court ruled that this was not the same as having a saved image. This means that people from New York state who click the wrong link by accident will no longer face serious jail time and a lifetime of registering as a sex offender. People will be able to report what they've found to the police who can then go after the source of the child porn, instead of someone who was merely browsing the internet."
The court ruled that the the defendant must knowingly posses or obtain the images. This ruling helps you (directly, at least) only If you know nothing about browsing caching.
1. Re:Judges who actually followed the law?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  ... but the majority said it was up to the Legislature to declare merely viewing to be a crime.
  Wouldn't that also make it illegal for the prosecutors to view the CP to determine whether they should charge someone? AFAIK, unless specifically written into law, there is no exception for law enforcement.
2. Re:Judges who actually followed the law?! by CowTipperGore · 2012-05-10 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Hate to reply to myself, but to clarify - this ruling was regarding the NY state law. US federal law already covers access with intent to view, but it does require knowledge and intent. In theory, accidentally stumbling upon some CP shouldn't run afoul of the law but a case like Professor Kent would be covered.
3. Re:Judges who actually followed the law?! by Cajun+Hell · 2012-05-10 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  There is no problem with prosecutors violating all the laws that they want to, even without exemptions, as long as no one prosecutes them. And generally, prosecutors tend to choose to not prosecute themselves. There's something about the sentence "I'm pressing charges against me" which causes people to not say it.
  Remember that laws only exist when enforced. If a law isn't enforced, or is selectively enforced, then the details for when it applies and when it doesn't, are largely irrelevant.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
4. Re:Judges who actually followed the law?! by Jessified · 2012-05-10 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  reader concertina226 asks "Errr... just because he didn't download the pictures, how does this make it okay? He's still accessing child porn! "
  *someone sends concertina226 child porn via email, anonymously tips police.*
  Prison term + sex offendor registry = fair outcome, amirite?
Re:Can pirates legally download to a temp folder a by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:02 · Score: 0

Doubt it works that way. If the Court finds out you were intentionally viewing child porn everyday then they are more likely to rule that you were doing something illegal even if you weren't saving it. Or you were opening up the temp files on a regular basis.

Speaking of piracy, if downloading music/movies for free kills the music/movie industry, shouldn't downloading child porn for free kill the child porn industry? So using the **AA's logic we should be pirating more child porn?
People are not arrested for being pedophiles by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 02:04 · Score: 2

You cannot arrest someone for wanting to cause harm; everyone will want to harm another person at some point in their life. The point of arresting people who possess child pornography is that they might have paid for it, and thus encouraged someone to abuse children i.e. they indirectly caused harm to children. Yet a line must be drawn somewhere; having images in a browser cache is not proof that a person paid for child pornography or otherwise encouraged its production, and moreover it is not even proof that a person deliberately accessed child pornography (as you noted).

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm... I see where you're going with this. That said, I think there's multiple reasons to arrest a kiddie porn enthusiast. Obviously, it's a good thing to remove the financial base from the distributors, but it's also good to send a message that this bullshit is NOT to be tolerated. I know parents (and I'm one) who'd want to destroy a person for abusing their kids this way, so in reality, a prison sentence and the associated "rehabilitation" should be preferable. The fact is, enjoying child porn is wrong, period, and it's one of those "wrong" things that isn't just wrong, it's fucked way the hell up, with reasons ranging from the actual exploitation of the children to the financial support of the distributors to the fact that every time the content is viewed is another violation of the kid in the picture.
  
  There are a lot of crimes that I'm pretty ambivalent about; child porn isn't one of them. You wanna smoke weed, snort coke, or shoot heroin? Have at. It's kinda fun, for a bit, just be careful and don't hurt yourself or anyone else. But every time a kid gets looked at through pedophile eyes, in pics or in person, that kid gets their innocence raped again. I applaud the court's decision as it better defines those pedophile eyes.
2. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot arrest someone for wanting to cause harm; everyone will want to harm another person at some point in their life.
  
  Give it time. If you told someone fifty years ago that "possessing" an image or "intent to view" an image would ever be a crime, they would have laughed, too.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
3. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by misexistentialist · 2012-05-10 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  The point of arresting people who possess child pornography is that they might have paid for it
  Police have lots of tools for tracing financial transactions, but it seem like the business aspect is mostly mythical. Viewers are being punished for unholiness. The government also suppresses legally produced porn that it considers distasteful.
4. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-10 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  The fact is, enjoying child porn is wrong, period
  In your opinion.
  But I don't think people should be arrested for thought crimes.
  
  But every time a kid gets looked at through pedophile eyes, in pics or in person, that kid gets their innocence raped again.
  Looking at a picture is not at all the same thing as raping someone. I don't really care if some guy is looking at a picture lustfully. I really don't.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
5. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by DerekLyons · 2012-05-10 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  The point of arresting people who possess child pornography is that they might have paid for it, and thus encouraged someone to abuse children i.e. they indirectly caused harm to children.
  And that's where I have a problem with convictions for the possession of CP for just that reason - they're not being convicted for causing harm, they're being convicted because they might have caused harm. Outside of the TSA/Homeland Security/drug possession* etc..., you pretty much can't be convicted because you might have done something - conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
  
  Yet a line must be drawn somewhere; having images in a browser cache is not proof that a person paid for child pornography or otherwise encouraged its production.
  Possession other than in your browser cache isn't proof that you paid for it either. Receipts, email, or bank and credit card records are proof that you paid for it.
  
  *In many jurisdictions, possession over a certain ludicrously small amount is assumed under the law as de facto proof that you intend to distribute, allowing a much higher penalty to be imposed without the prosecution being burdened with the bothersome necessity to provide proof that you actually were dealing or intended to deal.
6. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  You cannot arrest someone for wanting to cause harm; everyone will want to harm another person at some point in their life. The point of arresting people who possess child pornography is that they might have paid for it, and thus encouraged someone to abuse children i.e. they indirectly caused harm to children. Yet a line must be drawn somewhere; having images in a browser cache is not proof that a person paid for child pornography or otherwise encouraged its production, and moreover it is not even proof that a person deliberately accessed child pornography (as you noted).
  Tell that to the guy who got 17+ years in Federal Prison for merely translating a manual in English on how to commit Jihad and nothing more.
7. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  In your opinion. But I don't think people should be arrested for thought crimes.
  Actually, it's not in my opinion, in terms of legal right and wrong. It is illegal to view child pornography when you have the intent to do so. Sort of the point of the court judgement in TFA. It's wrong illegally, and since you mention, yes, it IS my opinion that it's wrong, morally, too. As for the thought crimes bit; it's not a thought crime at all. Imagining child porn would be a thought crime. Viewing actual child porn is not. There's a nice, big, clear difference there.
  
  Looking at a picture is not at all the same thing as raping someone. I don't really care if some guy is looking at a picture lustfully. I really don't.
  No, it's not the same as a forcible sexual assault on the child's person. Good work on pointing that out. On the other hand, it IS a rape (or sexual violation) of that child's image and innocence, as I said. Perhaps I should have said that it's not right for someone to revel in a child's documented molestation, instead. I note that your sig guards you against "think of the children" arguments, and usually I'd agree. But in this case, it is entirely about abused children; that's the whole point.
  
  People that view (and doubly so for those that pay for) child pornography are contributing to and creating a market for the wholesale molestation of children. Every kid that gets molested can lay a part of the blame directly at the feet of these people, and it's fucked up and wrong. You can try to apply any logical loopholes you want, but distilling the issue to those terms makes it pretty tough to argue against. It's not about the guy looking at the picture lustfully; it's that the guy looking at the the picture lustfully is why there are pictures of sexual abuse of children in the first place.
  
  We're also not talking lolitas that look 17 but are actually 28 year old meth addicts. We're talking 10 year olds forced to suck cock or get anally raped so the guy you don't care about can get off on it. So yeah, what you call a "thought crime" I call a rape, and yup, that bit IS 100% my opinion, but it's one I'm willing to defend. Maybe fighting this plague will be like the war on drugs; simply not possible to win. But I can't continue to think of myself as a good person if I don't support the fight anyway. Some things are about personal freedom and the choice to live your life the way you want; but a line gets drawn when others' rights get violated, especially those unable to defend themselves.
8. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-10 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's not in my opinion, in terms of legal right and wrong. It is illegal to view child pornography when you have the intent to do so. Sort of the point of the court judgement in TFA. It's wrong illegally, and since you mention, yes, it IS my opinion that it's wrong, morally, too. As for the thought crimes bit; it's not a thought crime at all. Imagining child porn would be a thought crime. Viewing actual child porn is not. There's a nice, big, clear difference there.
  So basically, you just said, "It's illegal." I never said otherwise.
  I don't think it should be illegal. And yes, it is a thought crime. "It's disgusting that people look at it! They're thinking of having sex with children, and therefore should be arrested!" is something I've seen people say.
  
  On the other hand, it IS a rape (or sexual violation) of that child's image and innocence, as I said.
  Oh, okay. The child's "image" and "innocence." That's a vast improvement. Completely intangible things are being... uh... "raped." Forgive me for not caring, because I really don't.
  
  People that view (and doubly so for those that pay for) child pornography are contributing to and creating a market for the wholesale molestation of children.
  Not necessarily. If they merely view it without anyone knowing (especially if obtained from a second-hand source), then they're not.
  But really, I don't care if they are or aren't. I think it's 100% a waste of my tax dollars to go after basement dwellers looking at pictures lustfully (even if they paid for it). I'd much rather go after the people doing the raping.
  
  Some things are about personal freedom and the choice to live your life the way you want; but a line gets drawn when others' rights get violated, especially those unable to defend themselves.
  Right. The kids who are getting raped are having their rights violated. That is what I want to stop. I don't really think looking lustfully at a picture is violating anyone's rights. Especially when the original victim doesn't even know it's happening. Oh, and the original victim will probably be too busy getting raped, anyway, since we're wasting our tax dollars on catching basement dwellers masturbating over pictures.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
9. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-10 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. If they merely view it without anyone knowing (especially if obtained from a second-hand source), then they're not.
  In addition to the fact that it is by no means guaranteed that they're aiding further abuse, I have a problem with the fact that it's assumed that they are. They're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is, no one expects others to prove that they actually helped aid further abuse. Would it be difficult? Yes. But I don't believe that should get in the way of what I deem "justice." We can't skimp on real due process.
  I don't believe in convicting people based on what might have happened in the first place. If we're going to convict people based on the fact that they viewed child pornography, and the reason that it's illegal is because it's believed that it aids further abuse, then I believe they should have to prove that the person aided in the abuse of a child in each individual case.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
10. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-10 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Imagining child porn would be a thought crime. Viewing actual child porn is not.
  It is a thought crime.
  You see, viewing child porn is not illegal for everyone. In fact, viewing child porn is only illegal for people who have bad, nasty thoughts while viewing it.
  This conveniently translates to "anyone who intentionally obtains and views child porn, with the exception of cops and FBI agents who are paid to do so".
11. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Well, reading over your response twice, the second time with less vitriol, I can see we want the same end result. Good enough for me. Though if the kid was one of my daughters, I wouldn't see much of a difference between the photographer and the viewers. I'd want them all to pay, and yes, that's vengeance, not justice, and I own it.
12. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by nitehawk214 · 2012-05-10 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot arrest someone for wanting to cause harm; everyone will want to harm another person at some point in their life.
  
  Sure you can. If I hit you with my car I will get charged with a very different crime if they can prove I wanted to hurt you than if I was just being careless.
  What you are talking about is if someone thinks about doing a crime. This is more about when something actually occurs and not when someone just thinks about doing something.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
13. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Hrrm. We need an analogous comparison. Something less... wrenching.
  
  If a theft is committed, and the thief sells his ill-gotten gains to another person, the buyer commits a crime if he knew exactly what he was buying and did so knowingly. That's what needs to be proven for that crime, which is either possession of stolen property or receipt of stolen property, depending on the jurisdiction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods)
  
  It's clear that the buyer contributed to the thief's crime in this case, as the thief profits even more from the original crime, but the possession or purchase of the stolen goods is a crime all by itself. By the same arguments given above, I can say that the buyer doesn't harm the original owner any further; that crime's already been committed, and the stuff's gone. So, why is it illegal? Well, near as I can tell, because it perpetuates and aggravates an already committed crime.
  
  Intellectually, I can draw a parallel to the original creator of child porn, and those that view (receive/possess/whatever) it. It's extremely hard not to jump to conclusions and write my arguments without venom, for obvious reasons, but in attempting to remove the ugliest aspect, I think there are already cases where the precedent has been set, without any "think of the children!" skew.
14. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-10 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  but the possession or purchase of the stolen goods is a crime all by itself.
  Yeah, but in this case, merely possessing the stolen goods is depriving someone of their property (that's still legally theirs) for a longer period of time. If the stolen goods are found, I think they should be returned, and whether or not they're punished depends on their original intentions (Did they know it was stolen?).
  With child pornography, nothing is really taken. The pictures are simply copied over and over.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
15. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  The point of arresting people who possess child pornography is that they might have paid for it, and thus encouraged someone to abuse children i.e. they indirectly caused harm to children.
  Unless child pornographers have discovered a way to send envelopes of anonymous cash via the internet, it should be pretty easy to establish whether someone in possession of child pornography paid for it (and thus encouraged harm to children) or not. Why don't we make that a requirement for these lifelong barred-from-society punishments?
16. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  You've confused "intent" with Orwell's "thoughtcrime". Many actions are only crimes when the intent behind the action is criminal. Killing someone, acquiring stolen property, or damaging property are all examples of this. With intent, they are murder, theft, and vandalism, respectively. Without intent they could be war, ebay, or faulty brakes. Even without intent, consequences are often required anyway; from simple guilt to financial ruin to civil recompense.
  
  The fact is, viewing naked children performing sexual acts for pleasure IS intended, with a REAL criminal intent and a REAL criminal possession (albeit a digital one). Even Orwell's thoughtcrimes were 100% imaginary; this was the entire reason why 1984 was so compelling. We SHOULD be avoiding prosecution of thoughts when no crime has been committed, especially since it's human nature to have an imagination. Just my dreams alone would land me in a Minister of Love's office.
  
  But, and this is the true line in the sand, the moment there's a real child represented, it's not thought anymore. I really don't understand why this distinction is so hard to comprehend. I'm as much for due process, intent, and avoiding accidental (or nefarious) arrests of innocent people as anybody on this forum. Kids getting in trouble for sexting is stupid. An 18 year old kid and his 16 year old daughter should have at, so long as they're careful. I applaud the NYC judge's decision in the article, too.
  
  I will NOT extend my general live and let live way of thinking to the creation, disbursement, and yes, intentional viewing for sexual gratification, of sexually exploited children. If you, somehow, can, I must question either your logic or your sincerity.
17. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  First time I've ever seen the "copyright isn't theft" argument used in a discussion of child porn. :) I agree with you that the analogy breaks down if you're looking at the photo as property, and the viewing of the photo as "stealing" the child's image for sexual purposes, but that's not the point.
  
  We can distill this entire discussion down to two conflicting concepts. I believe it is simply wrong, both morally (via "gut") and legally (via research) to view child pornography with the intent of gaining sexual gratification in some form (I also applaud the judge's decision for all the reasons many others have applauded it in other posts). Your position (I think; feel free to correct) is that since the exploitation has already occurred, no further damage is being done to the exploited child, so the viewers of child pornography are not damaging that child, or any other (there's also a sprinkle of privacy violations thrown in - more on this in a moment).
  
  Logically this has led to your position also being that the resources spent on investigating or prosecuting a viewer of child porn would be better spent on going after the creators. My position logically leads to creators, distributors, and viewers ALL be investigated, prosecuted, and rehabilitated (to the extend our justice system is capable), with priority given to the creators and distributors, all while providing the suspects with all the rights they are entitled to, including extreme discretion on the part of the investigators, as even a mistaken accusation relating to child pornography WILL lead to the suspect's ruination.
  
  I don't believe the law enforcement resource pool is so small that this cannot be done. As for privacy concerns; the proper due process we all clamor for daily on this forum takes care of this issue. I'm aware that simplifying the situation to this degree borders on naivete, but without cutting to the heart of the issue, we'll go around in circles yet again. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. On the other hand, I can see all of your points making total sense to items like simulated child porn, child porn where the subject is nearly an adult, or looks to be an adult, or teenagers sending nudies to each other, etc. All gray areas, for sure. Freaky tentacle cartoons loaded with bukakke? Sure, have at; not my thing, but I don't care what gets you going.
  
  But I'm thinking of the 10 year old girl having her life and psyche wrecked so some damaged mind can rub out that quick one.. That's wrong, and try as I might, I can't think my way around it being wrong (and, as a freedom loving fellow, I've spent quite a bit of brain cycles on it). Maybe we need more definitions of what we mean when we say "child porn".
18. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-10 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  Your position (I think; feel free to correct) is that since the exploitation has already occurred, no further damage is being done to the exploited child, so the viewers of child pornography are not damaging that child, or any other (there's also a sprinkle of privacy violations thrown in - more on this in a moment).
  The only way I could see it actually hurting the child is if they knew about it. But once something is out there, I think it's futile to try to control it. And I don't think people have a right to not be offended/angered by other people looking lustfully at a picture.
  
  I don't believe the law enforcement resource pool is so small that this cannot be done.
  It isn't small, but if we stopped wasting our time on pointless things, we could do more to catch the actual rapists.
  
  But I'm thinking of the 10 year old girl having her life and psyche wrecked so some damaged mind can rub out that quick one.
  But once the pictures are out there, I don't think it matters anymore. We just need to ensure more don't get made.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
19. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-10 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  You've confused "intent" with Orwell's "thoughtcrime".
  No, I've not. The "intent" is to produce the thoughts. The thoughts themselves are why it's illegal. Hence thoughtcrime.
  
  The fact is, viewing naked children performing sexual acts for pleasure IS intended
  Pleasure is nothing but a thought. As I said: the intent is merely to produce the thoughts. Thoughtcrime.
20. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-11 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  First time I've ever seen the "copyright isn't theft" argument used in a discussion of child porn.
  I'll brag a little, I beat him by 4 hours.
  
  the analogy breaks down if you're looking at the photo as property, and the viewing of the photo as "stealing" the child's image for sexual purposes
  If we're going there, why not go full retarded and claim that taking a photograph of someone steals their soul.
  
  I believe it is simply wrong, both morally (via "gut") and legally (via research) to view child pornography with the intent of gaining sexual gratification in some form
  In the moral sense I agree with you; in the legal sense I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think I agree.
  
  I'm thinking of the 10 year old girl having her life and psyche wrecked so some damaged mind can rub out that quick one
  The first half of that statement is tragic, I'll agree, but I don't agree with the "so [that]" connection you made between it and the last half.
21. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-11 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  We just need to ensure more don't get made.
  Definitely. For the rest of it all.... I guess our life experiences have been different. I understand your arguments, but I don't agree with your conclusions. That's ok though; we have the same ultimate goal. Maybe we should go into politics together; most of those asshats can't even compromise over what to have for lunch.
22. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-11 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  If we're going there, why not go full retarded and claim that taking a photograph of someone steals their soul [google.com].
  This is why I said the analogy breaks down
  
  In the moral sense I agree with you; in the legal sense I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think I agree.
  I just meant that it's illegal to view or possess child porn in most jurisdictions. In fact "viewing" has been rather draconian in it's interpretation, until the judge from TFA weighed in.
  
  The first half of that statement is tragic, I'll agree, but I don't agree with the "so [that]" connection you made between it and the last half.
  I'll say it this way then. A victim of child molestation is damaged greatly. Getting off on the evidence of that tragedy is also a pretty screwed up act, all by itself, and one that should continue to be punishable.
  
  Sometimes acts that don't hurt anybody directly are still crimes. I'll leave it up to you to research others, or not. Thank you very much for the discussion, though. It's been a good one, but I don't think we'll convince each other.
23. Re:People are not arrested for being pedophiles by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-11 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  I just meant that it's illegal to view or possess child porn in most jurisdictions.
  That's what I thought you meant. And yeah, I disagree with the logic behind those laws.
  
  I'll say it this way then. A victim of child molestation is damaged greatly. Getting off on the evidence of that tragedy is also a pretty screwed up act, all by itself, and one that should continue to be punishable.
  Pretty screwed up, yes, but not punishable, I don't believe, unless they're first offered counseling to help them avoid acting on their desires and/or shift their fantasies into more acceptable domain, without the severely life-altering consequences that are presently not only likely but almost certain. If they're unresponsive or uncooperative, then perhaps more severe actions should be taken.
  Some men just want to watch the world burn. And then masturbate. Both of which make them feel better about their own miserable selves. And as long as they're not starting fires, I don't see the harm. People will do desperate things when they're suffering from severe depression. Self-harm or drinking your liver to death are probably more harmful physically; bizarre and socially unacceptable fetishes are probably more damaging to the psyche. All of it just tends to build a moat around the depressed individual and distance him/her from society, fostering a growing illusion of a desert island - far from any help, and more importantly, not worth helping anyway. Yes, some counseling would probably help, but prison certainly won't.
  I don't believe that most pedos are happy about the way they are. And the ones who're complacent in the fact are that way because they've been hardened by hiding it for so long. My opinion. Probably could be backed up by medical fact, but I don't have the facts, so ... take it for whatever you think it's worth.
  
  Thank you very much for the discussion, though. It's been a good one, but I don't think we'll convince each other.
  Not a problem. Thanks too for a reasoned conversation; often as not it's just trolls throwing accusations of pedophilia to see if they strike a nerve.
Re:Can pirates legally download to a temp folder a by slashmydots · 2012-05-10 02:09 · Score: 1

That would classify as "purposeful" downloading or viewing or whatever. The same goes if you watched a streaming movie on some rogue TV and movie streaming sight. Just because it was in a popup doesn't mean anything but if you sat there for an hour, you probably landed on that page on purpose and watched the movie.
Stop going to shitty porn sites by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:09 · Score: 0

Stop going to shitty porn sites and you won't be bombarded with russian lolitas and other questionable pornography that can get you in trouble.
The FBI can still arrest you even if you "accidentally" browse the site. A friend of a friend got arrested last year in Florida (pedo capitol btw) for just browsing these sites.
Another thing people don't realize is your internet cache.... some of these sites "download" images onto your internet cache folder. 4chan does it and you'd be surprised how many 120x120 thumbnail pictures are in there of where ever you happened to browse in 4chan that day.
torrents are the way to go for good quality, legal porn.
1. Re:Stop going to shitty porn sites by nashv · 2012-05-10 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  torrents are the way to go for good quality, legal porn.
  Torrents...huh. I am guessing you use the word 'legal' loosely.
  
  --
  Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
2. Re:Stop going to shitty porn sites by Cajun+Hell · 2012-05-10 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Stop going to shitty porn sites
  Strategic advice noted. This is not an argument for a court, though. There is no crime in visiting "shitty sites" and according the law there's no reason reason people should avoid doing so, merely based on the site's shittiness. You have to try to see something illegal-to-see, for this particular court to treat you as a criminal, or at least that's what they're saying, in this instance.
  
  The FBI can still arrest you..
  ..any time they feel like it, whether you commit a crime or not, or depending on the political content of your car's bumper sticker, or depending on the color of your skin. The injustice of bullshit arrests (even when they don't lead to convictions) is a totally separate issue. The point is that even if they arrest you, this court is saying it will try not to convict you, unless there is actual evidence that you were trying to commit a thoughtcrime.
  If the FBI arrests you because of your bumper sticker or because a site you browsed contains kiddie porn, or because your skin is too dark, yes you are still fucked because you were suddenly kidnapped and because you're going to be spending money on legal defense. But at least if you get this judge, you might end up without a criminal record. The color of your skin or the fact that your browser loaded a kiddie porn image, won't be considered evidence that you were trying to get kiddie porn. His argument is that storing kiddie porn isn't enough; you have to want to do it or know you did it, in order for the act to be illegal.
  
  Another thing people don't realize is your internet cache...
  The court appears to be saying that's a good thing: not realizing you have a cache. If I'm reading this right, if you know how web browsers work, the act of viewing illegal content is more likely to be considered a crime by the court, than it would be for another person who doesn't know about caching.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
any demand creates a supply by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 02:16 · Score: 0

just because you can't put a dollar sign on it doesn't mean that the rules of demand and supply don't apply
those who consume these images create a market for it and are therefore culpable for its creation and should be punished

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:any demand creates a supply by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to the **AA. If downloading music for free is killing the music industry, why shouldn't downloading child porn for free kill the child porn industry?
2. Re:any demand creates a supply by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  LOL
  and of course, that sarcastic comment is exactly right. people trade and love free music, and are therefore very much involved in fostering its creation
  a guy will spend more effort creating a song that puts a smile on a woman's face, as his only payment, than he will in a year's worth of labor at a job that pays him cold hard cash
  demand != $$$
  demand --> supply
  going after demand is a fair target in the fight against child porn
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
3. Re:any demand creates a supply by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  just because you can't put a dollar sign on it doesn't mean that the rules of demand and supply don't apply
  If nobody is willing to trade, supply and demand do not enter the picture. You might say there is "no demand" -- that is, nobody is willing to pay any price or make any sort of trade. Now, there are some people who are willing to pay -- and I think there is are good arguments for arresting them -- but people who are unwilling to make any trade for child pornography are people who do not even count in terms of demand.
  
  Let's put it this way: distributing a child porn image is a risky activity, especially if you are the one depicted in that image (and likewise, allowing someone to photograph you abusing a child is risky). That risk necessitates some sort of trade; there must be some incentive for someone to take on that sort of risk, perhaps money, perhaps additional child pornography, perhaps something else. Someone who is just downloading child pornography, without paying or trading, is someone who is doing nothing to encourage its production, and may even discourage its production by making the producers nervous (e.g. someone who downloads an image and disappears could be a cop or someone who will report the image to the cops).
  
  So yeah, just consuming child pornography is not encouraging its production, unless there are people out there who are willing to pay or trade. Which is why I said that people who pay are people who should be arrested: they are actually creating the market.
  
  Yes, I know that what I am saying is that some guy sitting there getting off to a child porn image should be left alone, as long as he did not pay for the image. It is not something that people like to hear, but someone who cannot be shown to have harmed children is not someone who needs to be kept in prison, He may be a creep, he may be a pervert, you may not feel comfortable having your children near him, but an image does not harm a child. We also have limited law enforcement resources, and a large number of child abusers who should be in prison -- and people who pay for child pornography are not only encouraging child abuse, they are also a source of valuable intelligence for finding child abusers (whatever they pay with must be sent somewhere, and even a digital cash transaction still has to have some counterparty).
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
4. Re:any demand creates a supply by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  well more importantly, a guy wacking off to a child porn image is a guy who is someone who is sexually aroused by children. you are comfortable with such a person being free in your community?
  pedophilia is like a curse. because it renders you incompatible with free and open society. the imperative to protect our children is a biological imperative stronger than any theoretical argument you can make. nobody is going to let a person who has shown the predilection for prepubescent children roam free in their community, and they are right
  if you demonstrate pedophile urges, you need to be permanently kept away from society. you only represent potential damage on young lives. your sexual urges means you have no right to freedom
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
5. Re:any demand creates a supply by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  well more importantly, a guy wacking off to a child porn image is a guy who is someone who is sexually aroused by children. you are comfortable with such a person being free in your community?
  Honestly? As long as they can keep it to themselves and not try to have sex with any children, I really do not care. I do not want to be in the business of judging people or imprisoning them for what they are thinking about, no matter how perverse their thoughts may be. What people become sexually aroused by is not really anyone's business. Arrest or ostracize people for their actions, not their thoughts.
  
  Now, I say this knowing full well that I would try to keep a person who admits to being aroused by children as far away from my little cousin (I have no children to speak of) as I can. It is only natural to be suspicious of someone who is not afraid to admit to being a pedophile, even if they never act out on that impulse. Yet being distrustful of someone is not the same as thinking that the police should march in and arrest them, or that tax dollars should be spent housing them in a prison.
  
  if you demonstrate pedophile urges, you need to be permanently kept away from society
  No, if someone demonstrates pedophile behavior they need to be kept away. We should not be in the business of prosecuting people for thinking things that disturb us, that is a path that ends in tyranny.
  
  your sexual urges means you have no right to freedom
  No, a person's thoughts are their business and theirs alone. Arrest people only for actions, and only for actions that can be shown to harm others. Prisons are not disposal bins for anyone whose thoughts or fantasies disgust us, nor are prisons a memory hole for people we do not trust.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
6. Re:any demand creates a supply by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Err, yeah, great idea as soon as you show me the research that shows the 100% correlation between pedophilia and complete lack of self-control. Known abusers of children should be in prison. Pedophiles who haven't abused anyone... should be seeing mental health professionals.
7. Re:any demand creates a supply by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  you great faith in the power of the human will over the power of human sexual urges
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
8. Re:any demand creates a supply by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  you great faith in the power of the human will over the power of human sexual urges
  we also arrest people for intent. consuming child pornography is a pretty clear statement of intent
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
9. Re:any demand creates a supply by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  consuming child pornography is a pretty clear statement of intent
  It sounds more like a statement of a person's own fantasies to me, or in some cases just their curiosity.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
10. Re:any demand creates a supply by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Demand does not magically create supply. Child pornography is extremely risky to produce and distribute; nobody is going to do it just to satisfy demand, they do it because they expect to receive some form of payment, which may or may not be money.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
11. Re:any demand creates a supply by amRadioHed · 2012-05-10 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  I'll be honest, I'm attracted to women and yet I've never sexually abused one. Does that restore your faith in humanity, or do you think I'm just an outlier?
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
12. Re:any demand creates a supply by dbet · 2012-05-10 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Then looking at images of dead bodies creates murderers. Anyone who views an image of a corpse should be tried as if they killed the person themselves. Right?
13. Re:any demand creates a supply by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-10 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  well more importantly, a guy wacking off to a child porn image is a guy who is someone who is sexually aroused by children. you are comfortable with such a person being free in your community?
  He is clearly sexually aroused by pictures of children. Whether he will be sexually aroused by actual, live, children remains in question.
  I would not be comfortable with such a person being alone with a child. However, if other adults were present, I'd expect them to be very careful to avoid drawing suspicion when they were around children, and in all probability avoid children in general and seem uninterested in being around them, as long as not given the opportunity for private encounters with them.
  
  pedophilia is like a curse. because it renders you incompatible with free and open society.
  I agree with you there.
  
  if you demonstrate pedophile urges, you need to be permanently kept away from society. you only represent potential damage on young lives. your sexual urges means you have no right to freedom
  And disagree there.
  Children are a wonderful part of life. Confining someone to a world without children is downright cruel and unusual. If they enjoy being around children in safe environments with other adults present, of course.
14. Re:any demand creates a supply by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  your attraction for women is something that is not a transgressive abuse no matter how you stage it. a woman can consent, it is not logically possible for a child to (informed) consent
  you have never carried around a basic sexual urge that is a transgressive abuse no matter what that shall never know a valid outlet
  countless times there are religious men who daily rant about the evil of homosexuality... and yet are found acting on their own homosexual urges. homosexual urges are perfectly fine, of course, because they involve consenting adults. but the example of these deeply closeted religious folks shows you the truth strength of impulse control when pitted against basic sexual desire
  you still have faith in a pedophile never acting on his urges? you have some mighty great faith in the human will, and/ or some mighty little regard for the strength of sexual compulsion
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
15. Re:any demand creates a supply by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  i'll tell you what, your neighbor has fantasies and curiosities about raising crocodiles in his yard, or experimenting with ricin and plutonium
  how do you feel about raising your children next to your neighbor now? do you think you have a right to know about these fantasies and curiosities? do they have no effect on you?
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
16. Re:any demand creates a supply by amRadioHed · 2012-05-10 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  There's a big difference between women legally being able to consent, and women choosing to consent. There are plenty of guys with absolutely no luck with women who are not rapists.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
17. Re:any demand creates a supply by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-10 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  I am not really seeing your point -- am I supposed to care more about my neighbor fantasizing about experimenting with plutonium? No, I do not think I have any business inspecting my neighbors' thoughts. They can fantasize about pink pony themed websites, or they can fantasize about vivisecting human beings, as long as they are not going out and harming people I really do not care.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
18. Re:any demand creates a supply by networkBoy · 2012-05-10 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  That would be one FSCKing argument to use in court if you were silmutaniously being sued and charged for both respectively...
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
19. Re:any demand creates a supply by cheekyjohnson · 2012-05-10 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if they don't want others to encourage the production of more child pornographer, then they should at least have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they did just that merely by possessing an image. Someone is innocent until proven guilty, and if they want to arrest someone over child pornography, the least they could do is prove that they encouraged the production of more.
  Of course, I'd prefer it if we didn't waste our tax dollars going after people who look at images to begin with...
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
20. Re:any demand creates a supply by scot4875 · 2012-05-10 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  well more importantly, a guy wacking off to a child porn image is a guy who is someone who is sexually aroused by children. you are comfortable with such a person being free in your community?
  What about a guy who whacks off to rape porn? Rape is illegal too, yet rape porn is perfectly legal -- are you going to argue that we should feel unsafe around this guy, too, because he gets off on something like that?
  Note that I'm not arguing that it is or should be ok to make child porn -- children can't consent, whereas the actresses in the rape porn can. I'm specifically questioning your willingness to lock people up for having urges (even if they've never acted on them) that you find disagreeable.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
21. Re:any demand creates a supply by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-10 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  well more importantly, a guy wacking off to a child porn image is a guy who is someone who is sexually aroused by children. you are comfortable with such a person being free in your community?
  Yes, of course. You're basically advocating thoughtcrime here. Civilized societies don't punish people for their thoughts.
22. Re:any demand creates a supply by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  They also created demand for photos of dead people, therefore creating a market for murderers.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
awesome! by j00r0m4nc3r · 2012-05-10 02:22 · Score: 1

now i just need to store all my child porn in my browser cache folder and i'm free and clear
Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:23 · Score: 0

So, what keeps pedos from simply changing their downloadfolder to that of their browsercache-folder and be square with the law?
1. Re:Devil's Advocate by Cajun+Hell · 2012-05-10 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  So, what keeps pedos from simply changing their downloadfolder to that of their browsercache-folder and be square with the law?
  Inconvenience. By conflating your temporary trash files with your desired working set, yes, you can make it harder to analyze what you're doing, and cast ambiguity on evidence. But that works both ways: it makes it harder for you to keep shit together, and you're failing to use the power of computers to organize things for you. It's also not safe; this doesn't "square you with the law"; it simply provides an advantage.
  Once could even argue that by creating such a situation, the law is functioning correctly: it's deterring kiddie porn by making the collecting and viewing of it a less pleasant experience. True, it's not as unpleasant as prison, but this measure is a much cheaper for us than prison (or even investigating a suspect), so the balance tips at least in the right direction, if not the degree that everyone would like.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
2. Re:Devil's Advocate by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing. What's your point? That we should keep punishing innocent people so guilty people can't claim to be innocent?
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
What about browser cache? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:29 · Score: 0

Many images from sites are stored in the 'cache'... Therefore downloaded/saved to your machine, but not with any users approval. Was this addressed?
Remember, this is only one of DOZENS of charges. by anthropromorph · 2012-05-10 02:36 · Score: 0

The myth is that stumbling upon this kind of material would result in you getting charged with a crime. This whole article focuses on ONE out of DOZENS of criminal charges. So DOZENS more are valid charges not based solely on browser cache. Only persons who have vast amounts of child exploitation images on their devices ever get charged with any crime. It's simply not worth investigators, prosecutors and the courts time to charge any crime of child exploitation that is only based on a few images in browser cache.
Pedobears ALWAYS had a loophole by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-10 02:43 · Score: 2

"All they have to do is find a site on the internet to *view* from and it's legal."
Exactly. Just as the law says that all you have to do to view it legally without the internet is to have a friend who possesses it hold it up and show it to you. Read it again: Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law. This ruling simply clarifies that viewing a site doesn't constitute possessing the file. If you have an issue, it is with the law itself, not how it applies to the net. This is a simple but all too rare case of: Hey ... this judge actually understands the technology!

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
1. Re:Pedobears ALWAYS had a loophole by blueg3 · 2012-05-10 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's a technically sound ruling. Viewing images of course causes them to be stored on your hard drive (via the browser cache), and this ruling says that that mechanism does not qualify as "procurement". This is kind of like ruling that loading a program stored on your hard drive into memory does not constitute "copying" for the purposes of copyright, even though, yes, it is technically copying.
In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:54 · Score: 0

... rape victims are no longer to be stoned. How fucked up does a place have to be for something like this to be something that was ever in doubt in the first place?
Good by doston · 2012-05-10 03:00 · Score: 1

The ruling makes sense to me. In light of the outrageously stiff penalties for viewing CP, there should be some real clear intent. That said, I've browsed a vast, vast, vast, vast amount of internet pron in my day and have never happened upon CP, so I'm not sure how often it's accessed absently. Vast.
Distinctions by jdavidb · 2012-05-10 03:07 · Score: 1

However the court ruled that this was not the same as having a saved image
That's really a false distinction, to me. I know that most people don't have enough knowledge to poke into the browser cache and that it is essentially a "black box," but there are no end of web clients, no end of ways of configuring them (or modifying the source!), and no way to reliably know what a person actually does or does not know how to do.
Meanwhile, the people drawing this false distinction don't seem to draw the more critical distinction: viewing a photograph of an incident of child abuse, verses actually engaging in child abuse!

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Genius by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 03:18 · Score: 2

Of the defendant in the case which sparked the ruling, though, reader concertina226 asks "Errr... just because he didn't download the pictures, how does this make it okay? He's still accessing child porn! "
Because "accessing" isn't the actual statutory offense, and "possessing" is? But never let facts get in the way of mindless moral panic, eh?

--
Liberty in your lifetime
Big Brother is watching you masturbate. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:18 · Score: 1

And then there's the worrisome concept of "illegal content" itself.
One does wonder about the morality of arbitrary restrictions about what is legal to see, to know about, to think about...
Double Standard? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:59 · Score: 0

Are pictures of any other crimes illegal?
1. Re:Double Standard? by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and the fact that the government got away with outlawing child porn a few decades ago (1973 in the U.S., for example) has since been used as justification to outlaw photos and videos of animal cruelty ("crush videos"), photos of extreme violence and gore, and in some places like the U.K. now, things like consensual bondage/S&M pornography.
  Any power we give to the government will ultimately be abused.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
2. Re:Double Standard? by Sesostris+III · 2012-05-10 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  . . ., and in some places like the U.K. now, things like consensual bondage/S&M pornography.
  Have you got a citation for this? Being from the UK I realised that CP ('indecent images of children', whether photographic or not) and zoophilia (bestiality) were illegal, but not bondage/S&M.
  
  --
  You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
3. Re:Double Standard? by J'raxis · 2012-05-10 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  New UK law to outlaw violent porn. When does kinky porn become illegal?. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (2008 c. 4) is the bill; it's in part 5, section 63.
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
Re:a common sense extension of real-world preceden by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-05-10 04:01 · Score: 1

Nah, the real world equivalent would be "feel free to do your normal van-related activities around a playground without getting arrested when the fat kid trips and accidentally shows you his ass crack." On the other hand, If you're taking your van out of the way in the hopes the fat kid will trip, yeah, you're a fuckup and did something wrong. This shit really isn't hard.
Slightly OT by JazzLad · 2012-05-10 04:37 · Score: 1

Anyone seen NYCL in a while? I'm surprised to not see him posting on these stories.

--
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
wtf? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 04:51 · Score: 0

my god you are an idiot
there's a problem in your statement by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 05:34 · Score: 1

your stance assumes we know the pedophile urges about this person. that the person has volunteered this information about himself
obviously, this information is not going to be freely offered. you can imagine why. so we leave children alone with this person, because we don't know, and then we find out the hard way the person likes children sexually
or, we find them when we see they have a large stash of child porn on their computers. and we act before the inevitable. you can't chaperone the guy for the rest of his life. you lock him up, because base human sexual desire is always there, and human will power is often weak. during that moment of weakness, alone, around a child, the inevitable happens. we owe it to our children to ensure that this moment never happens to a child, by removing the person with these predilections from society, permanently

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:there's a problem in your statement by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-10 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  your stance assumes we know the pedophile urges about this person. that the person has volunteered this information about himself
  Are you assuming that people have not done so? Usually "volunteered" after they're caught, so not exactly volunteered, I'll grant you. But "volunteering" it beforehand has dire consequences.
  
  obviously, this information is not going to be freely offered. you can imagine why. so we leave children alone with this person, because we don't know, and then we find out the hard way the person likes children sexually
  The "imagine why" bit is revealing. I can also imagine a world where we would know, because the ramifications of admitting something like this - before any children are actually harmed - would be that they're afforded counseling if they want it, and they're not allowed to be alone with children; no more, no less. If other adults are around, as I said before - I have no problem with that, unless the person is openly lewd toward children - in which case I'm sure the other adults would take immediate steps to stop it.
  So, in what way is our current state of affairs better than the imaginary one I just described?
  As it is, there are few instances where you should ever leave your children alone with someone. One of those is if it's their relative. Sadly, most child abuse occurs by the child's relative. And it is tragic when it happens. However, I still can't help but feel that it's caused primarily because they are driven underground by shame and the fear of people knowing. If anyone knew, they would almost certainly have loved ones taken away and never be permitted to see them - for a very long time.
  
  base human sexual desire is always there, and human will power is often weak. during that moment of weakness, alone, around a child, the inevitable happens
  Looking at a picture is a seemingly victimless crime. Abusing a child results in a young individual who may be scarred for life. The difference between the two is not necessarily a simple matter of variable willpower.
2. Re:there's a problem in your statement by circletimessquare · 2012-05-10 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  you're not speaking frankly about human sexual desire. shame comes with that, utterly regardless of societal norms or orientation. sexual desire is also extremely powerful. in the most accepting society possible towards people with pedophile feelings, there is still shame and still acting on urges in spite of willpower and acceptance
  and it is really quite odd that you believe society can, or should, or has the resources, or would even be allowed to, chaperone a pedophile for the rest of their lives
  you're pitting your idealized fantasy (no pun intended) about how things might work, versus the cold hard reality of how these situations really play out. imprisonment is the only realistic option
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
3. Re:there's a problem in your statement by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-05-10 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  shame comes with [human sexual desire], utterly regardless of societal norms or orientation.
  I don't believe you.
  
  you believe society can, or should, or has the resources, or would even be allowed to, chaperone a pedophile for the rest of their lives
  Actually, no. I believe society can, should, and had better have the resources to chaperone children at all times. And the chaperone generally shouldn't be left alone with the child either.
  
  you're pitting your idealized fantasy (no pun intended) about how things might work, versus the cold hard reality of how these situations really play out.
  I'm not convinced that it's an impractical fantasy. I believe it would be very difficult to change the entrenched status quo, and that is why the cold hard reality is the cold hard reality that it is.
Mental State Requirement by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:56 · Score: 0

The Fed cp "viewing" statute, and I believe all similar state statutes, requires both "knowing" access and "intent" to view. "Accidentally" accessing and viewing cp is not, never has been, and never will be a crime. Additionally, knowingly accessing cp with the intent to view appropriately carries the lowest penalty among fed cp offenses.
Charging a crime without requiring any mental state (such as knowingly accessing and have the specific intent to view - 2 mental state requirements) is called strict liability. For public policy and historical reasons, the US has very few strict liability crimes (e.g., I think interstate shipping tainted food is a strict liability offense - i.e., it does not matter if you knew or intended the ship tainted food, you are criminally liable if your warehouse is so infested with rats it taints the food).
Child sex abuse is a serious problem and disinformation, such as stating no mental state is/was required, undermines efforts to tackle the problem. As a person on the front line for almost 10 years (both state and fed), note that there is a trend of the victims of getting younger. For example, a significant % of the cp videos and images in my last 3 cases depicted infants and toddlers being sexually abused. The problem is getting worse - and in nearly 10 years of prosecutions and hundreds of matters, I have almost never seen a matter in which the vast majority of the cp did not depict prepubescent children (children under 12-10 years-old).
It happens by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:25 · Score: 0

I was logged into a Chat Site and went to view a members profile and viola. Had the Picture right on the screen. Maybe only 2 or 3 times this happened to me and then it stopped. Some saw them a lot or not at all. With the Internet anything can and will happen. The Admins and Moderators tried to keep and eye out and remove the accounts as fast as they could but anyone can create an account just as fast. Hijacked links or whatever still occur. This sounds like someone was exercising a little common sense to establish "real" intent rather than the typical witch hunts.
not fair by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 08:27 · Score: 0

....
This means that people from New York state who click the wrong link by accident will no longer face serious jail time and a lifetime of registering as a sex offender. ....
They should be stoned to near death, hung and beheaded in public square, and finally burned to ashes, like they do in other states to people who change diapers of small babies.
Its all Obamas fault -- he is not TOUGH on crime
where are repubs when we need them?
china, russia and iran are responsible for this
we should attack some small country to correct this situation
This is just spreading ignorance by KingTank · 2012-05-10 13:43 · Score: 1

WE all know that viewing and downloading a file is really the same thing. If you're worried about accidentally downloading kiddie porn, there's something in criminal law called "intention" that protects you from being wrongfully convicted. It's the same reason why you can't "accidentally murder" someone. Although in that case, you may be found intentionally and therefore criminally negligent or reckless.
It's not a loophole by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 17:27 · Score: 0

Even thinking about this as a "loophole" misses the point. It wasn't always illegal to possess child pornography.
In the beginning, it was made illegal to produce and sell it. To produce it is, obviously, very wrong. Banning the selling was intended to cut off the profit incentive.
But the police complained that they couldn't find these sellers. So it was made illegal to purchase it. That, surely, would dry up the profits.
But then the police complained that, when they arrested someone with child pornography, they couldn't prove that he actually bought it. So it was made illegal to even possess it. To make conviction easier on mere evidence of possession.
Then the nitwit chorus took up the refrain "he was viewing it! Obviously viewing it makes you evil; that's why it's illegal, isn't it? Everyone knows that!"
Viewing child porn is a secondary crime, not an inherent evil. I don't care if he did intend to view it. Get over it.
And, in general, I am sick of the law not evolving with the digital age, tubes and all. Viewing a web site is... like watching TV.
I don't believe it by tehcyder · 2012-05-10 20:00 · Score: 1

No one ends up with a huge cache of child porn on their computer by accident. It's just a loophole for paedophiles.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Same guy, same poem: by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · 2012-05-11 02:08 · Score: 1

"As the plow follows words, so God rewards prayers."
Different poem:
"An Angel came to me and said: 'O pitiable foolish young man! O horrible! O dreadful state! consider the hot burning dungeon thou art preparing for thyself to all eternity, to which thou art going in such career.' "

--
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.