You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 02:09:43 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: So in New York it's apparently legal to VIEW Child Porn, but not POSSESS it.  (Read 2100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris BradyTopic starter

Not 100% sure what to think of this one.

Seems a bit wonko . . . basically if I look at an image I'm innocent, but if I know there's a browser cache I'm guilty??? So basically we're criminalizing techies and nerds?

Looks like something which needs to be addressed properly.

Actually.  If it's ONLY in your cache, you're NOT guilty.  If it's on your HDD, then they investigate.


In any case I'm not really sure about the viewing thing. I understand the implications with the 'unintentional viewing' but what if your the type of creep who intentionally legally views child porn? Now you can get away with looking at child porn as long as you don't download it or know your browser has a cache. Seems a bit off to me.

Again though I can see how's it's a bit challenging since I scrolled down to find the kids off the incredibles once. Plus with many search engines you may click a link and find that link isn't what you were looking for. I guess it's a tough one to work out. I'd say it should be more a question of whether a person was actually looking for such to begin with and his or her reaction after finding it by accident.

Webshots (Which my mother uses) downloads a set of pictures that are 'tagged' in a certain way.  Like say...  Waterfalls.  So Webshots will look for everything listed as 'Waterfall'.  Now some people may inappropriately list Sunsets as a Waterfall.  Which my mother didn't want.

Thing is, most porn sites do the same thing, but tend to keep it 'on site'.  So you might get some mislabeled pictures, some of which might be questionable.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Actually.  If it's ONLY in your cache, you're NOT guilty.  If it's on your HDD, then they investigate.


Webshots (Which my mother uses) downloads a set of pictures that are 'tagged' in a certain way.  Like say...  Waterfalls.  So Webshots will look for everything listed as 'Waterfall'.  Now some people may inappropriately list Sunsets as a Waterfall.  Which my mother didn't want.

Thing is, most porn sites do the same thing, but tend to keep it 'on site'.  So you might get some mislabeled pictures, some of which might be questionable.

They might check your search history (I know they can do that - seen it in murder cases), and they might look to see if it's anywhere but the 'Temporary Internet Files' (which is the place on your HDD where the cache is stored - saying that the cache and the HDD are separate entities is a mistake.)

Offline Kuje

Just to update this story, the NYS lawmakers have already issued bills, the day after the ruling came out, to close the loophole and basically overturn the judges ruling.

Here's just one link that discusses the new bills: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Child-Pornography-Law-New-York-Bill-151369105.html

Offline Missy

This was outside of NYC, but it was covered in paragraph fourteen and the following paragraphs.

Quote
The federal statute outlawing possession of child pornography 18 USC 2252A doesn't mention browser caches. The few cases that have examined the issue at the federal level notably a 2002 federal appeals case involving a Utah man and a 2006 federal appeals case involving a visitor to Las Vegas 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.

"Those statutes are probably not quite as incomprehensible, but they are anything but clear," Dershowitz said.

Kent's convictions on the other counts rested on other evidence, including a folder on his machine that stored about 13,000 saved images of girls whom investigators estimated to be 8 or 9 years old and four messages to an unidentified third party discussing a research project into the regulation of child pornography.

"I don't even think I can mail the disk to you, or anyone else, without committing a separate crime. So I'll probably just go ahead and wipe them," one of the messages said.

Offline Missy

Better than I could have said it myself.

Quote
"The viewing of child pornography creates a demand and there is an entire industry out there of these images," she said. "When there is a demand, that requires abuse of the children to make more images."

Offline Lord of Shadows

In Sweden according to the law there are no difference between a drawn image and a real one when it comes to porn and since we have a law against viewing child pornography it is not legal to learn which images that are illegal and which are not. If you try to find out which images a person got convicted for you are breaking the law. It also makes it rather complicated since if I would to find child pornography on a hard drive, I have committed an offence just by discovering it and the safest thing we can do is just try to hide it, if you report what you have found and how you found it you can be charged as well.

Also this has an effect that a lot of normal hentai image and movies are highly illegal in Sweden too not to mention if you own a copy of it. Again since it illegal to learn what is illegal you just can hope that what you has on your computer is not child pornography.

I should add too that all images which show a person under 18 that has sexual content are considered illegal. Thought I should add that to the whole thing. There are no difference if you have drawn it yourself, taken images of yourself or if you have taken pictures while a kid is getting physically raped. And that is insane.

In Sweden Google is the main provider of child pornography according to our laws.