I will be posting this link with absolutely no personal opinions or posts besides OP

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05...l-in-new-york/

Quote:

---

Viewing child porn online is no longer a crime in the state of New York, following a ruling from the New York Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

James D. Kent, a college professor, was indicted on two counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child and 141 counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child, convicted and sentenced to prison in 2009. The appeals court dismissed one of the counts of promotion and one count of possession, but supported the other convictions.

The court’s decision hinged on the fact that the images were not downloaded, only viewed. The court ruled that it cannot prove possession of an image that was automatically stored in the computer’s cache without the owner of the computer’s consent.
Related

Child pornography suspect replaces bin Laden on FBI Most Wanted list

Montreal police seeking victims in child porn-extortion case

Tens of thousands of images of prepubescent girls around the age of eight or nine were found in folders on Kent’s hard drive. Kent denies his guilt, and has argued that someone else at Marist must have placed the images on his computer.

They were found on his hard drive by an IT employee when Kent complained that his office computer was too slow. Kent teaches business administration at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York.

But some of the images were not downloaded by Kent; they were viewed online and stored as a file in his browser’s cache.

“Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law,” Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for a majority of four of the six judges.

“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,” Ciparick wrote.

The judges made it clear that they condemn child pornography, but Ciparick wrote that it was not up to the courts to “criminalize all use of child pornography to the maximum extent possible.” That, he wrote, is up to the legislature.

As the law stands, viewing an image online is not the same as possession, and thus not illegal.

---

It's not here yet, and it's certainly important to others besides myself, though for different reasons. That is all.

Makes me ashamed to live in New York -_-

Weird enough (And don't consider this as me supporting child porn because i don't support that messed up pomegranate), i agree with the court decision.

Mostly because it was the browser cache, everything from a online page you saw with your browser gets saved in there and after a few days it will be deleted. That includes stuff like emails images and stuff.

Proving that the teacher entered a child porn site or something showing child porn with the intention to do so its virtually impossible with the images of the cache alone because he could have been victim of a rickroll-esque type of prank or some weird email prank sending him to that page with the images, and the browser would save the images regardless.

I guess this article lacks info to make an accurate claim. But I can see where the judges are coming from. I mean, I wouldn't like to get a charge of CP due to a file that got saved due to some poor sob in the internet that decided to plaster a pic of that somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenixR

Weird enough (And don't consider this as me supporting child porn because i don't support that messed up pomegranate), i agree with the court decision.

Mostly because it was the browser cache, everything from a online page you saw with your browser gets saved in there and after a few days it will be deleted. That includes stuff like emails images and stuff.

Proving that the teacher entered a child porn site or something showing child porn with the intention to do so its virtually impossible with the images of the cache alone because he could have been victim of a rickroll-esque type of prank or some weird email prank sending him to that page with the images, and the browser would save the images regardless.

---

or browsed 4chan.
(being serious here.)

it's a ruling that opens a lot of problems trying to not screw a few unlucky ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShinkuDragon

or browsed 4chan.
(being serious here.)

it's a ruling that opens a lot of problems trying to not screw a few unlucky ones.

---

This.
Apparently threads on 4chan that are reported for CP log everyone who even CLICKED on the threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raul

This.
Apparently threads on 4chan that are reported for CP log everyone who even CLICKED on the threads.

---

not to mention that if the OP/latest posts actually have a picture, it will download on your computer wether you click it or not, but yea.

i rarely browse there nowadays, but it's still dangerous stuff that can pop out anytime, especially at the odd times i'm awake ~_~

but we're going off-topic i believe.

It's a good decision. If some random bot came in here and posted CP and you clicked the thread before a mod could delete it, you wouldn't want to be found guilty of in possession of CP would you?

I really don't think that all "tens of thousands" of the pictures on his hard drive where there because of the "accidents" that you guys describe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rains

I really don't think that all "tens of thousands" of the pictures on his hard drive where there because of the "accidents" that you guys describe.

---

Thats called speculation, you don't know better and the court didn't know either so it didn't act or do anything based on speculation alone. With the legal system is Hard Cold Evidence or you get the court hammer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rains

I really don't think that all "tens of thousands" of the pictures on his hard drive where there because of the "accidents" that you guys describe.

---

Obviously, which is why the appeals court only dismissed two charges out of 143.
Still is an important precedent for anyone who only has such pics in their browser's cache directories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happylight

It's a good decision. If some random bot came in here and posted CP and you clicked the thread before a mod could delete it, you wouldn't want to be found guilty of in possession of CP would you?

---

I think it's a bad decision for the same reason. Ignorance of the law can't be an excuse, or else there is no way to effectively regulate possession of anything. All you need is for a mule transporting an illegal good to be able to feign ignorance. Limiting the breadth of possession in legal terms makes anti CP enforcement essentially impossible.

You have to be responsible for the content of your hard drive. The reason why your hypothetical doesn't inspire fear is that you are fully able to delete your cache should you accidentally stumble on CP. Perhaps if the government was constantly scanning everyone's hard drive for even a momentary presence of CP, but it isn't.

Intent isn't a requirement for possession. The law says possessing CP is illegal. In the context of the consequences yes that is severe. If you let someone use your computer even for a moment, they could leave it in a state that means you broke federal law. But I don't think the alternative is preferable, where CP is as unassailable as any other digital media by the government.

The judge in this case is saying all the legislature has to do is say "viewing" CP is illegal. But if that was the case you run into the same problem of a defendant saying "but I didn't view it, it's just in my cache because someone else used my computer".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exidous

I think it's a bad decision for the same reason. Ignorance of the law can't be an excuse, or else there is no way to effectively regulate possession of anything. All you need is for a mule transporting an illegal good to be able to feign ignorance. Limiting the breadth of possession in legal terms makes anti CP enforcement essentially impossible.

You have to be responsible for the content of your hard drive. The reason why your hypothetical doesn't inspire fear is that you are fully able to delete your cache should you accidentally stumble on CP. Perhaps if the government was constantly scanning everyone's hard drive for even a momentary presence of CP, but it isn't.

Intent isn't a requirement for possession. The law says possessing CP is illegal. In the context of the consequences yes that is severe. If you let someone use your computer even for a moment, they could leave it in a state that means you broke federal law. But I don't think the alternative is preferable, where CP is as unassailable as any other digital media by the government.

The judge in this case is saying all the legislature has to do is say "viewing" CP is illegal. But if that was the case you run into the same problem of a defendant saying "but I didn't view it, it's just in my cache because someone else used my computer".

---

Not everyone that uses a home computer for internet-based activities and/or browsing knows how to clean their cache. You're implying that even seeing a single picture of child pornography is grounds for jail time, even if it's accidental. Which is outright stupid. Granted this may open a few doors for some pedophiles to attempt to get away with their actions, I still think this is better than the guilty until proven innocent mentality.

I'm not implying anything about the quantity (or for that matter, definition) of CP necessary to violate the law, that's statutory.

Not everyone knowing something is a pretty crappy reason not to enforce a law.

It's not guilty until proven innocent, the law says you can't possess it. You either do or you don't possess something. You can possess something and not KNOW you do, and I don't think that should absolve someone of guilt for the reasons I described. The problem I'm pointing out with this decision is that it calls into question what counts as possession beyond the point of it being a useful legal concept for any kind of enforcement.

The idea that all you have to do is store your CP in your cache to be safe is what's damning here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exidous

I'm not implying anything about the quantity (or for that matter, definition) of CP necessary to violate the law, that's statutory.

Not everyone knowing something is a pretty crappy reason not to enforce a law.

It's not guilty until proven innocent, the law says you can't possess it. You either do or you don't possess something. You can possess something and not KNOW you do, and I don't think that should absolve someone of guilt for the reasons I described. The problem I'm pointing out with this decision is that it calls into question what counts as possession beyond the point of it being a useful legal concept for any kind of enforcement.

The idea that all you have to do is store your CP in your cache to be safe is what's damning here.

---

Allow me to direct you to a post that was made earlier in the thread;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happylight

It's a good decision. If some random bot came in here and posted CP and you clicked the thread before a mod could delete it, you wouldn't want to be found guilty of in possession of CP would you?

---

It's great and all that you have such a strong standpoint on the matter, but what if you're the one caught in that situation? Would you be so happy that possession of it PERIOD lands you a jail cell? I don't think so. Quit acting as though every person out there with one wrong click of the mouse is a damn criminal.

Oh my stomach.

It hurts to laugh...please spare me.

You can't measure computer related stuff with the same bar you use it for real life stuff.

Computers do so many thing behind the screen that you can't really put 100% of the blame to the user of the computer. If by clicking on a wrong link or downloading anything can get you to download another file that you will barely notice that will infect your computer and make it do lots of crazy things it could also mean that any motherpineappleer that is bored enough to make a virus that make your computer download CP without you ever noticing it until its too late.

Would you still say that kind of "Possesion" its still ground for unjustly sending someone to jail? No just no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exidous

I think it's a bad decision for the same reason. Ignorance of the law can't be an excuse, or else there is no way to effectively regulate possession of anything. All you need is for a mule transporting an illegal good to be able to feign ignorance. Limiting the breadth of possession in legal terms makes anti CP enforcement essentially impossible.

You have to be responsible for the content of your hard drive. The reason why your hypothetical doesn't inspire fear is that you are fully able to delete your cache should you accidentally stumble on CP. Perhaps if the government was constantly scanning everyone's hard drive for even a momentary presence of CP, but it isn't.

Intent isn't a requirement for possession. The law says possessing CP is illegal. In the context of the consequences yes that is severe. If you let someone use your computer even for a moment, they could leave it in a state that means you broke federal law. But I don't think the alternative is preferable, where CP is as unassailable as any other digital media by the government.

The judge in this case is saying all the legislature has to do is say "viewing" CP is illegal. But if that was the case you run into the same problem of a defendant saying "but I didn't view it, it's just in my cache because someone else used my computer".

---

No one's claiming ignorance of the law. There could be CP on this very page and you wouldn't know about it. Now your cache has CP in it. Not everything loaded on the page is displayed. Think of something like a spoiler tag without the button. It's very easy to do.

Thought I had seen it all by now

I think its swell how you guys can be all understanding for people who inadvertently have CP in their cache but didn't intend to. But you're missing the point here. Without possession applying to files stored on your hard drive in legal terms, there is no way to enforce anti CP laws. All it takes is the accused storing his voluminous collection in the cache and pleading ignorance for him to be 100% not guilty based solely on this precedent. Furthermore, it's not absurd that the anti CP law can be written so that individual files in the cache are insufficient to convict someone on the charge. The law can be flexible too, but I feel the need to reiterate: with this decision any enforcement can be evaded at low cost to the criminal.

Innocent people getting brought up on charges (ie not even convicted) < CP going free

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justin

It's great and all that you have such a strong standpoint on the matter, but what if you're the one caught in that situation? Would you be so happy that possession of it PERIOD lands you a jail cell? I don't think so. Quit acting as though every person out there with one wrong click of the mouse is a damn criminal.

---

I would explain the hoops events must've gone through for that result to occur. Really, I just would've cleared my goddamn cache if I suspected the FBI was going to seize my computer. It's something I do regularly enough anyway. This is not an important enough reason to be unable to enforce anti CP laws AT ALL on computers. Which I will continue to impress on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenixR

Would you still say that kind of "Possesion" its still ground for unjustly sending someone to jail? No just no.

---

Well, here's your alternative right here. The law in New York state now has a precedent absolving CP viewers, collectors, and probably producers who have the foresight to store their collection in cache. But don't worry, at least innocent people won't be bothered. Unless they're children.

Lack of a perfect enforcement mechanism doesn't mean certain actions shouldn't be legislated against. But that is exactly the trade-off if you prefer this decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happylight

No one's claiming ignorance of the law. There could be CP on this very page and you wouldn't know about it. Now your cache has CP in it. Not everything loaded on the page is displayed. Think of something like a spoiler tag without the button. It's very easy to do.

---

You're right, I meant ignorance of your possessions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exidous

I think its swell how you guys can be all understanding for people who inadvertently have CP in their cache but didn't intend to. But you're missing the point here. Without possession applying to files stored on your hard drive in legal terms, there is no way to enforce anti CP laws. All it takes is the accused storing his voluminous collection in the cache and pleading ignorance for him to be 100% not guilty based solely on this precedent. Furthermore, it's not absurd that the anti CP law can be written so that individual files in the cache are insufficient to convict someone on the charge. The law can be flexible too, but I feel the need to reiterate: with this decision any enforcement can be evaded at low cost to the criminal.

Innocent people getting brought up on charges (ie not even convicted) < CP going free

---

The difference is in the intent. If someone purposely stored CP in cache then they would be guilty of possession. This decision at least allows for CP to be reported. There have been cases where people stumbled upon CP on the internet, they reported it to the police, then they get charged for possession because of cached images on their computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exidous

Innocent people getting brought up on charges (ie not even convicted) < CP going free

---

Considering the social stigma and penality, I would say that's up for debate. I don't really see the "threat" of someone being able to "view" it. Just because I look at child porn doesn't make me some sort of child molestor, as I look at asian porn doesn't make me an asian molestor. I think you're taking this too high on your moral high ground.

Not that I personally "approve" of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happylight

The difference is in the intent. If someone purposely stored CP in cache then they would be guilty of possession. This decision at least allows for CP to be reported. There have been cases where people stumbled upon CP on the internet, they reported it to the police, then they get charged for possession because of cached images on their computer.

---

Indeed it is the difference. Most criminal offenses we're familiar with require intent for conviction. However, merely proving "possession" carries no such requirement. Certainly we can discuss whether that's the appropriate enforcement mechanism in the case of CP, but I think you'll find that proving intent for media, just like illegal substances, is quite difficult. It's why possession is the crime rather than (or at least, in addition to) use.

I'm just glad no one is trying to argue that this doesn't gut the possession aspect of the law.

EDIT: Okay that sounded wrong. Let me clarify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

However, merely proving "possession" carries no such requirement.

---

So, viewing CP is illegal. In addition to that, posssessing or distributing CP is illegal. In order to possess something there has to be intent, but in the case of possessing an image file on your computer, intent could be as simple as having your cache is set to retain things. That's enough to establish you had "intent" to possess the image files in your cache. So by having this wider definition of wrongdoing than viewing CP, it allows the state to achieve convictions in cases where they can't prove an obvious intent to use CP - which I'd argue is the majority on computers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exidous

I'm just glad no one is trying to argue that this doesn't gut the possession aspect of the law.

---

Well it is indeed possession, but we are talking about computers here, like i told before they do (And can do MUCH MUCH more) under the monitor processes and actions that you can't really blame the user for everything that happens with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenixR

Well it is indeed possession, but we are talking about computers here, like i told before they do (And can do MUCH MUCH more) under the monitor processes and actions that you can't really blame the user for everything that happens with it.

---

Sure you can. If a user isn't responsible for his computer, who is? If you think we shouldn't hold them responsible, go ahead and lay out what you think a better enforcement mechanism should be. I'm willing to argue that we can't legally be less stringent than we are now if we expect to effectively ban CP.

Look folks, CP enforcement is the one thing that clashes with what most of the Internet wants the law to be regarding it. Instead of permitting anonymity and freedom, anything involving CP is locked down in a fashion that is quite severe. That could very well conflict with your sensibilities, but arguing for the same standard of enforcement for CP as other Internet crimes has consequences, as I'm trying to point out.

If you're okay with the consequence: that CP will become as accessible as any other pornography or copyrighted media, then you are tacitly approving of its use, production, and dissemination.

Kind of agree with the verdict. Most people do not know how to control things a computer does automatically.

I don't think anyone can or should be expected to know every single thing their computer may or may not be doing. Considering that it would require exact knowledge of the behavior of the hardware, firmware, and software. So basically, you would have to design and construct your computer's hardware and firmware from scratch, and only ever run software that either you yourself have written or which is open source and the entire code base of which you have read and fully understood. I don't think there's a person alive who could do that and achieve a minimum level of functionality expected of a modern computing device. You will always be operating under the trust that someone else has not told your computer to do something malicious.

it's very easy to place an image within a file without a person knowing it's there but still be accessable. also how many times have you seen a drawing or doujin,etc or stumbled apon one where there was child porn .. atleast once I'm sure. Child Porn doesn't even require people to be in it, it can be a comic depicting it and it's still considered child porn.

most people don't know how to take care of their pc, we don't teach it in schools and it isn't common knowledge.
so I agree with the courts descision even if it is suspect that THAT many images would be on someone's computer unknowingly.

Edit : To prove a point. I went to 4chan within under 3 minutes I scrolled past an image of what was most certainly a nude underaged girl performing a sexual act. I've yet to clear my cache. does this mean that I currently possess child pornography since it is in my cache and should be treated and punished as if I've done some horrible crime? I'd argue that no. but if you think I do then please forward this post to a legal authority because I'm too lazy to clear my cache.

also to be clear.

1. I am against child porn
2. I am against it only when it involves actual people to create it. if it's 3D,photo manipulation to make a normal photo look as if the person is nude, a rendering, story (Basicaly anything other then the real thing)
3. I do not belive that simply viewing it without any intention to do so should ever be a crime. that's just too orwellian for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flonne

It's not here yet, and it's certainly important to others besides myself, though for different reasons. That is all.

---

lol.
On topic: Not sure what to think about this.

feels indifferent here. Sure helps those who've stumbled upon it by accident.

Quote:

---

Just because I look at child porn doesn't make me some sort of child molestor, as I look at asian porn doesn't make me an asian molestor.

---

This so much