Of New York and Pedos

[Søren]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11602955-viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-legal-in-new-york-state-appeals-court-finds#.T6qApmWs3a8.email

So it looks like looking at child porn is okay now as long as you don't own. Not sure what to think of this the amoralist in me is "eh" but the other part of me is thinking this is starting to delve into thought police. The whole cache thing in the article is quite interesting too.

Thoughts and opinions?

[Captain Jack Harkness]

...generally conclude that cached images alone can establish possession if the defendant knows about the browser's caching function.

Both courts noted that it was hypothetically possible for the defendants to be innocent if they were ignorant of the cache function.

What?  Ignorance defense? >.<

Seriously.  You can get off if you plead you're a computer illiterate fucktard?  Of course, then again if you're aware of the cache and you're looking for child porn, you're probably smart enough to not keep track of your cache through something like Incognito mode or clear it.

Whatever.  This is ridiculous.

[Søren]

That's why I said its delving into thought police. Weird shit

[Osama bin Bambi]

In my state, if you are a student and you are sent sexual or sexually suggestive pictures of a classmate, and you show it to a teacher, they can be suspended for looking at child porn. It's that bad.

The law seems to only restrict ownership of child porn, which means you cannot legally buy it. So does that mean looking at free child porn on the internet is okay, as long as you don't make any copies for yourself? Not that it'll make a dent in that horrible "business."

[Søren]

"It is a good thing. It applies to some very fringe cases. Here's an example: You're browsing around and stumble upon some child porn. Horrified, you immediately call the authorities. Under current law, you are in possession of child porn by even stumbling upon it. When you look at an image online, a version is cached in your browser's history. An overzealous DA, perhaps embarrassed by the incident, could try and pin a child porn charge on you. The picture is there, but there is no criminal intent. Even if the charges don't "

I guess this is what the law is for. So fair enough I guess

[Stormwarden]

I dodged a bullet here, as did a lot of other people. A long time back on Newgrounds, someone posted a piece called "Batman vs. Superman," with the description "Who would survive?"

Said piece turned out to be a piece of kiddy porn someone had submitted as a prank. I e-mailed Wade Fulp, and he contacted the feds. A whole lot of people viewed it before it got removed, and it's the reason for the whistle system on Newgrounds. BUT, if it were as easy as prosecuting people over even viewing it, I and a whole lot of other people would have been in a lot of legal trouble.

And the kid who submitted it? Permabanned from Newgrounds, and regrettably not dealt with by the Feds since they couldn't get to the source.

[Yaezakura]

I think it's worth noting that only the charges related to the images in the cache were dismissed, not anything actively saved to the system. Caches are automatic, and plenty of people don't even know about them, let alone how to clear them. Someone who stumbles across something by accident and immediately leaves it shouldn't be labelled a criminal--which is the reasoning here, I would assume. And considering the amount of fucked up shit it's way too easy to stumble across online, I think it's pretty sound reasoning.

Just because something is in your cache doesn't mean you had any intent to view it.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Well, I can see someone being an unwitting viewer as some have said.  People post all sorts of questionable things online.  I suppose saving would solidify intent.

Also, if someone's actively seeking the stuff, there's likely other evidence that would indicate such.

[Sylvana]

Well, I can see someone being an unwitting viewer as some have said.  People post all sorts of questionable things online.  I suppose saving would solidify intent.

Also, if someone's actively seeking the stuff, there's likely other evidence that would indicate such.

Well one could do an evaluation on the cache and look at the quantity of child porn therein. People who are not looking for child porn wont have much child porn images cached. Probably a few pictures or a site's worth of thumbnails. However someone who is actively looking for child porn will easily have a couple of sites worth of cached images.

As much as I find child porn reprehensible, the child porn laws have been overly draconian for a long time and often harm people innocent of the actual crime. I think measures such as this are a good thing, as it allows people to stumble across child porn by accident and alert the authorities without getting into trouble themselves.

[Fpqxz]

CCleaner, people.  If you ever click on a dodgy link that turns out to be CP (or something equally nasty), use CCleaner and and Secure Delete option.

It's also really good for securely deleting stuff that you don't want other people to see (such as legal documents, financial data, etc.)

[Lt. Fred]

Frankly, the idea of dealing with child pornography at the source just isn't going to work. You're never going to appreciably decrease demand. You've got to attack the people making it- just like with drugs. If you reduce the supply, that will reduce consumption.

[largeham]

OT, but that actually doesn't apply to drugs. Throughout the 80s and 90s, over 90% of funding in the cocaine war was spent in interdiction and supply control, however the number of addicts rose and the price fell, while demand control (addict centres, rehab clinics, etc) showed the most promise.

[Sylvana]

Frankly, the idea of dealing with child pornography at the source just isn't going to work. You're never going to appreciably decrease demand. You've got to attack the people making it- just like with drugs. If you reduce the supply, that will reduce consumption.

Fighting the demand is tricky, and fighting the suppliers is also not that simple.
The first problem one is faced with is the draconian child pornography laws. I agree clamping down on child pornography is important, I disagree that arresting teenagers who send naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriend while being stupid is the right course of action. The laws seem to catch more innocents than offenders, and when they do actually catch someone legitimately in possession of child pornography sending him away for life (its something like 6 months minimum sentence PER image in possession, it adds up to life sentences way to easily) is not the best way to deal with it.

Second and probably most importantly is the social stigma associated with people in possession of child pornography. The general social reaction is to label them a monster call them dangers to society for being a pedophile. Personally I prefer pedophiles looking at child porn than the priests who actively molest little children. The people who are real monsters and dangers to society are not so much the pedophiles as they are generic child molesters. We need to change societies view on pedophiles to no longer be one of a monster, but of someone who needs help. If pedophiles can come out and get proper help and counseling without ending up stigmatized and thrown in jail it would severely harm demand for child pornography.

Lastly the producers, like all sex rings they stay underground and generally use illegally imported slaves. Unlike prostitution rings though, they are not as interested in getting outside customers so they are not as visible or as likely to be found. This makes it very difficult for the police to actually find them sadly. Also, you get 'family' child pornography producers where all the participants are related in one family. Basically its incestuous statutory rape, and even harder to track down than the sex rings.

One more thing though, I personally believe that confiscated child pornography be made available to pedophiles who come forward for help. Nothing can undo the harm that the children went though to make them, and I personally don't like the idea of justifying their creation. However, pedophiles cannot change their urges, and if some child pornography helps with their counseling and for them to keep themselves in check, I think using it would be of benefit.

[Shane for Wax]

I hate to say it, but criminal justice is still very new to what all the internet and computer themselves are capable of. The field is about 10 years behind the technology, if that makes any sense. Regardless of what may be shown on tv (HAHAHAH). Because of that it is very tricky to find the line between 'actually saved the pictures' to 'it's saved in the cache'. For the law to recognize, that is. Anyone who knows computers even a little bit knows there's a difference.

It's why Computer Forensics is such a growing field but also dying for new bodies to fill the coats (poor choice of words in there but you know what I mean).

As was mentioned, trying to find out if someone knows about the caching is thought police which I don't agree with. Even if you do know, that isn't mens rea in the least. You could accidentally run into it but you start giving the police or investigators information about the cache and suddenly you're convicted of viewing child porn.

[Meshakhad]

My opinion is that child pornography should not be considered illegal per se. However, child pornography is likely evidence of serious child abuse. The illegal act would be owning child porn and not reporting it to the cops. In my perfect world, there would be a giant database, to which citizens could submit images with a minimum of difficulty (probably over the internet). These images would then be scanned with facial recognition software, and unless said image is already in the database, an investigation would commence. If it was just a case of sexting, no charges would be filed.