If you read the article.... it was 4 year old girls.
If you have a screen 800x600 (4800 sq pixels) then a 1000 sq pixel image would take up 1/5 of my screen. I would be able to recognize a 4 yr old vs a teen.
Now go F yourself, one for being a scumbag and defending the guy, two for not reading the article.
Apparently, so is zero.
If you actually went deeper into the story you would see the original original article... explains a LOT more then this.
The first article that was linked makes it sound like this guy is innocent, but if you read the original article in cnet, you will see that the FBI left the link on a known child porn chat area online... advertising graphically child pornography acts that were expect to see.
If my drunk friend sent me a link to this site, then Id be the first to turn my drunk friend in the police.
So the guy who was made out to be the innocent good guy in the aforementioned article, smashed his flash drive and hard drive while FBI was outside his door.
He also had a windows thumbnail file (thumbs.db), on his machine that showed pictures of "pre-pubescent girls" exposing their genitalia.
Now the thumbs.db is created for browsing photos easily - AND ONLY CREATED WHEN YOU RIGHT CLICK AND SELECT "VIEW AS... THUMBNAILS"
This means the man in the article, had PURPOSELY viewed these images before... then deleted the images, but forgot the delete the thumbs.db which contained cached thumbnails of the child porn he was viewing.
This guy did have porn, he was convicted by a grand jury and he was sent to jail, JUSTLY.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the article.... it was 4 year old girls. If you have a screen 800x600 (4800 sq pixels) then a 1000 sq pixel image would take up 1/5 of my screen. I would be able to recognize a 4 yr old vs a teen. Now go F yourself, one for being a scumbag and defending the guy, two for not reading the article.
If you actually went deeper into the story you would see the original original article... explains a LOT more then this.
The first article that was linked makes it sound like this guy is innocent, but if you read the original article in cnet, you will see that the FBI left the link on a known child porn chat area online... advertising graphically child pornography acts that were expect to see.
If my drunk friend sent me a link to this site, then Id be the first to turn my drunk friend in the police.
So the guy who was made out to be the innocent good guy in the aforementioned article, smashed his flash drive and hard drive while FBI was outside his door.
He also had a windows thumbnail file (thumbs.db), on his machine that showed pictures of "pre-pubescent girls" exposing their genitalia.
Now the thumbs.db is created for browsing photos easily - AND ONLY CREATED WHEN YOU RIGHT CLICK AND SELECT "VIEW AS... THUMBNAILS"
This means the man in the article, had PURPOSELY viewed these images before... then deleted the images, but forgot the delete the thumbs.db which contained cached thumbnails of the child porn he was viewing.
This guy did have porn, he was convicted by a grand jury and he was sent to jail, JUSTLY.