nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Child porn now legal in New York

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/09/viewing-child-porn-on-the-web-now-legal-in-new-york/

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.

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.

ummmm..... giggity?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

superluck wrote: »

I didn't fail to understand anything, buddy.

"Having images in cache is not the same as viewing" -- that's the argument being made and I really don't care about the circumstances.

There are plenty of cases where judges suppressed information related to pedophiles and handed down lite sentences to serial offenders.

Remember Brian Curtin?

Let's talk about how Gary Glitter was able to travel around abusing kids and get away with it...seriously, the law is soft on pedophiles because those who make up the laws are probably at it themselves.

well done, you utterly failed to read the original article and comprehend the reasoning being made.

But hey, you told me you totally understood and even called me "buddy" so I guess being consistently wrong is trumped by your blind insistence.

Good job.

Let us hope that they ban this again....along with the viewing of images/videos of physical assaults, shoplifting etc which are also images of a crime taking place.

the term "kiddie porn" seriously annoys me, makes it sound like a viable pornography niche. its "paedophilia" or "child abuse".

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Who downloads their porn now anyway...

Radharc na Sleibhte wrote: »

Your man from that band..... You know.......
Jaysis I cant think of the name......

Question answered!

dont know why but all i could think of was this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCYZ3pks48

On the ruling, its common sense. Otherwise you could just trick someone you don't like into accessing something malicious and watch them get prosecuted. Funny watching people get up in arms about something they haven't the slightest clue about.

flanum wrote: »

the term "kiddie porn" seriously annoys me, makes it sound like a viable pornography niche.

It is a viable pornography niche.

An illegal one, but that'd be like saying snuff movies aren't a viable branch of movie.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

superluck wrote: »

I didn't fail to understand anything, buddy.

"Having images in cache is not the same as viewing" -- that's the argument being made and I really don't care about the circumstances.

There are plenty of cases where judges suppressed information related to pedophiles and handed down lite sentences to serial offenders.

Remember Brian Curtin?

Let's talk about how Gary Glitter was able to travel around abusing kids and get away with it...seriously, the law is soft on pedophiles because those who make up the laws are probably at it themselves.

Y0u failed repeatedly and dramatically.

"Having images in cache is not the same as viewing" - if you understand completely, then you would not have made this comment.

"Plenty of cases where Judges have suppressed information" - can you name some? Where a Judge surpressed information to help another judge? And before you mention Brian Curtin, that as a police ****-up, not a judicial one. Also, you said, "plenty".

Gary Glitter was convicted and jailed twice. There is nothing a judge can do to prevent a criminal who has served his sentence from emigrating. Be it right or wrong, that's the task of politicans and law-makers.

OP, would you mind changing the thread title as it is a blatant lie.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you read the article it is a good thing, what it is saying is that having child porn in a cache file is not sufficient proof that the person knowingly or willingly went after child porn.

The law is protecting people who had some CP come up on screen due to malware or malicious redirect. Somebody with a collection of willfully downloaded images will still get done.

That seems like an awful lot of work. If it's all the same to you I'll just read the headline and then jump to a conclusion. k thnx.

superluck wrote: »

I didn't fail to understand anything, buddy.

"Having images in cache is not the same as viewing" -- that's the argument being made and I really don't care about the circumstances.

Right so.

You are aware that it would be technically trivial for any website, to embed hundreds of child porn images in every web page in a way that you can't see them? They would be downloaded to your cache and sit there as gleaming evidence of your child porn obsession, even though you never even saw any of them.

And when I say "technically trivial", the hardest part of doing this would be finding the child porn images.

Ok so read about this earlier and it got me thinking

either this judge is taking the IP address is not a person ruling a bit far and this will be used as a loophole for people to exploit...

or it makes sense and malware redirects or just stumbling across a 4chan thread where some pr*ck decides to be funny and post some CP (thankfully not so much now though moot seems to have got his **** together) so it could just be a simple mistake.

But IF CP images are found then surely the website addresses will also be there and that would be a lot more diffenitive.

check when this images were loaded and compare it to history and see what sites they were.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Let us hope that they ban this again....long with the viewing of physical assaults, shoplifting etc which are also images of a crime taking place.

What about watching someone watching it?

I remember reading a thread on another forum years back (Celebrity Nude Database, as that's the kinda guy I was/am) and there was a thread on Brooke Shields and when I scrolled down someone had posted the infamous images of Brooke naked when she was around nine in a bath, covered in make-up.

They appeared in some magazine when they first came out and have since been banned, I believe but when I was scrolling down, how was I to know that they were going to be there? Should I have to take responsibility for having seen them? Be punished for this? As that is why this measure seems to be addressing.

If someone is a dangerous pedophile, then they are going to have a hell of a lot more images on their computer that that which has been cached by their browser for heaven sake.

'Browser cache' should =/= 'Possession of'.

danniemcq wrote: »

But IF CP images are found then surely the website addresses will also be there and that would be a lot more diffenitive.

check when this images were loaded and compare it to history and see what sites they were.

Probably much like Irish law, the offence is probably being in possession of CP as opposed to just having seen it.

After all, if you start charging someone for looking at CP, then you're one step away from arresting people who glance at your naked child running on the beach.

In order to prove possession, it has to be shown that the person was aware that they were in possession of the item. After all, if a friend of mine asks to store boxes in my house and they're full of CP, then I'm not in possession of them.
So even in the case where someone was intentionally browsing CP, unless they knowingly decided to download the pictures and store them, you cannot prove that they are in possession of CP.

That's how it works in this jurisdiction anyway. It's fair enough from a lot of angles, as making it illegal to just look at an image is tantamount to enacting a thought crime, and any legislation on such an issue would need to be very carefully constructed to avoid kangaroo courts.

YOCK!

This legislation actually closes a legal loophole to some extent. Suppose for example that the FBI or CIA wanted to discredit a judge or a politician by placing images of child-porn on their computers and then acting on a 'tip-off', were able to sieze the computers in order to initiate proceedings? Up to now, simply having such images on your computer could result in a prosecution but because of this new legislation, law enforcement has an opportunity to prevent people from being 'set up' in order to damage their reputations.

We may now record how often this type of thing happens without incorrectly labelling innocent people as paedophiles.

And I do believe that such shenanigans take place at the very highest level of the American administration.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

As far as I know, the law is similar here. You have to be KNOWLINGLY in possession of child porn to be convicted. In other words, if it;s in the cahce, you can argue you didn;t know it was there.

Question then is: should you be legally responsible for everything in your cache?
Non techie question: can you be completely 100% aware of everything in your cache?

Child porn has been vlanned to Tor & Freenet and is hosted on the private web, not the world wide web which is untrackble to the FBI, CIA, Homeland, Scotland Yard and I believe the gardaí are only finding out about the internet this week.

The thing is Freedom is hosted in the USA so it's the USA's problem.
If they can't take it down and Anonymous failed at taking it down then it will never really dis-appear because the paedo's are always 2 steps ahead of the authorities.

It's utterly disgusting, google the subject and educate yourself if you don't already know about it.

Thread disappoints

Deleted User wrote: »

If you read the article it is a good thing, what it is saying is that having child porn in a cache file is not sufficient proof that the person knowingly or willingly went after child porn.

The law is protecting people who had some CP come up on screen due to malware or malicious redirect. Somebody with a collection of willfully downloaded images will still get done.

Finally, someone with a bit of sense.

As for the OP and his ridiculous thread title :rolleyes:

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Child porn has been vlanned to Tor & Freenet and is hosted on the private web, not the world wide web which is untrackble to the FBI, CIA, Homeland, Scotland Yard and I believe the gardaí are only finding out about the internet this week.

The thing is Freedom is hosted in the USA so it's the USA's problem.
If they can't take it down and Anonymous failed at taking it down then it will never really dis-appear because the paedo's are always 2 steps ahead of the authorities.

It's utterly disgusting, google the subject and educate yourself if you don't already know about it.

Have you forgotten that the internet and world wide web are just bolt-ons to Spynet which was developed by the CIA, I believe?

Just because the CIA or FBI haven't closed a paedophile operation doesn't mean they can't. It could be that there is more profit, or blackmail opportunities, in letting them operate.

I am in mind of an FBI operation that took place over three years some years ago. They watched the sites for three years and were able to obtain the transaction details of visitors to the site. They ended up with a list of thousands of prominent people many of whom were subject to prosecution.

I remember thinking at the time how easy it would be to set someone up for child-porn offences. Especially given the relatively technical ignorance of the judiciary regarding computer technology.

But more importantly I thought, for three years the FBI stood by and watched as hundreds of children were raped and abused and all they were doing was gathering the names of the visitors.

I say that if the FBI were able to intercept tranaction detail to and from the site then they were 'tracking' it. And if they were tracking it, why didn't they concentrate on catching the 'doers' rather than the voyeurs?

And anyway, if what you say is true then the fact that a bunch of perverts have the technology to stay '2 steps ahead of the authorities' (FBI, CIA, Homeland, Scotland Yard) has sinister implications as far as the war on terrorism is concerned.

TBH, it seems to me that child-abuse is acceptable at the very highest level of society. It's a power thing.

I think that more can be done to protect children but rounding up voyeurs appears to be more lucrative.

The real world sucks.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Masteroid wrote: »

Have you forgotten that the internet and world wide web are just bolt-ons to Spynet which was developed by the CIA, I believe?

Just because the CIA or FBI haven't closed a paedophile operation doesn't mean they can't. It could be that there is more profit, or blackmail opportunities, in letting them operate.

I am in mind of an FBI operation that took place over three years some years ago. They watched the sites for three years and were able to obtain the transaction details of visitors to the site. They ended up with a list of thousands of prominent people many of whom were subject to prosecution.

I remember thinking at the time how easy it would be to set someone up for child-porn offences. Especially given the relatively technical ignorance of the judiciary regarding computer technology.

But more importantly I thought, for three years the FBI stood by and watched as hundreds of children were raped and abused and all they were doing was gathering the names of the visitors.

I say that if the FBI were able to intercept tranaction detail to and from the site then they were 'tracking' it. And if they were tracking it, why didn't they concentrate on catching the 'doers' rather than the voyeurs?

And anyway, if what you say is true then the fact that a bunch of perverts have the technology to stay '2 steps ahead of the authorities' (FBI, CIA, Homeland, Scotland Yard) has sinister implications as far as the war on terrorism is concerned.

TBH, it seems to me that child-abuse is acceptable at the very highest level of society. It's a power thing.

I think that more can be done to protect children but rounding up voyeurs appears to be more lucrative.

The real world sucks.

Sounds a bit sonspiracy theory-ish to me. Not disagreeing with you, but would love to see the source on that.

The last bit is down to one simple factor: children have no power and can't vote. Democracy is not diesigned to care for children.

first time i went on 4chan i saw CP and instantly closed it and was scared that my house would be raided. Then the grifter got me :'[

Keep in mind, this is New York. Each state will have their own laws on child exploitation videos and they will have their own set of precedents and interpretations. In some states, even having images in cache will still be considered possession.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Sounds a bit sonspiracy theory-ish to me. Not disagreeing with you, but would love to see the source on that.

No mention of Spynet but this shows the military connection to the internet:

http://www.computerhistory.org/internet_history/

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The last bit is down to one simple factor: children have no power and can't vote. Democracy is not diesigned to care for children.

Ain't that the truth.

Run_to_da_hills

It wouldn't take forensics long to find out who downloaded what material onto a computer or media device if anyone had any inclination that this was a loop hole.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It wouldn't take forensics long to find out who downloaded what material onto a computer or media device if anyone had any inclination that this was a loop hole.

How could forensics tell the difference between a delibarately saved .jpg file and a .jpg file that was committed to the hard drive by malware which then deletes itself?

If the FBI wanted to plant child porn on someone's computer they'd just do it after they take the computer off them. Shower of bastards that they are

eth0 wrote: »

If the FBI wanted to plant child porn on someone's computer they'd just do it after they take the computer off them. Shower of bastards that they are

I agree. The law as it stands allows for unsafe convictions.