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

[happylight]

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.

[KhainiWest]

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.

[Exidous]

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.

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.

[FenixR]

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.

[Exidous]

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.

[DrRusty]

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

[inemnitable]

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.

[Promothian]

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.

[Words]

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.

[Born2BeMild]

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

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