1002 users online (133 members and 869 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    192

    Thumbs down NY-Viewing Child Porn on Internet is "legal" in NY

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...urt-finds?lite

    Oh, so now you have to print, save or download it to be arrested?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRanger View Post
    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...urt-finds?lite

    Oh, so now you have to print, save or download it to be arrested?
    This ruling does little to protect real pedos, and goes a long way towards protecting the innocent - it revolves around images that are automatically stored in your browser's cache. Many LEAs have been saying that counts, but an innocent person can wind up with such images in their cache without even being aware of it, due to sites using hidden images & such. In addition, if someone were to run across a bad image while browsing & promptly leave the site, their cache would not reflect that. All the courts are saying is that the cache alone is not enough proof of intent - you need corroborative evidence of intent, which is very fair. After all, real pedos just can't resist holding onto such materials. Note that in the case in question, the prosecution had plenty of other, more definitive stuff to charge the man with, and those counts all stood.

    From the article:

    To demonstrate possession of the images in the cache, "the defendant's conduct must exceed mere viewing," Ciparick wrote, adding that "the mere existence of an image automatically stored in a cache" isn't enough.

    Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that Kent even knew his Web browser had a cache in the first place, writing, "A defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists."
    All JMO
    The truth usually lurks beneath the surface - look deeper!





    On and on the rain will fall
    Like tears from a star like tears from a star
    On and on the rain will say
    How fragile we are how fragile we are

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    24,426
    I agree. There are lot of things on the internet and innocent people shouldn't go to jail for simply clicking on some website and seeing something they didn't intend to see.
    Just my opinion

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by jjenny View Post
    I agree. There are lot of things on the internet and innocent people shouldn't go to jail for simply clicking on some website and seeing something they didn't intend to see.
    But it still could be a double edged sword.

    They should have some form of stipulation that if they find the person accidentally clicked on the wrong link/got a pop up, fine they're innocent. But if a person actively searched for it (they find kinky stuff in the search history or multiple visits to the site/images), then they will prosecute them. I'm just imagining how some people can use this a way around the legal system.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRanger View Post
    But it still could be a double edged sword.

    They should have some form of stipulation that if they find the person accidentally clicked on the wrong link/got a pop up, fine they're innocent. But if a person actively searched for it (they find kinky stuff in the search history or multiple visits to the site/images), then they will prosecute them. I'm just imagining how some people can use this a way around the legal system.
    That's included in the language of the ruling - if there is enough other evidence to establish intent (which can include search histories), the prosecution is in safe territory. This ruling solely effects charges based entirely on cache images.

    In the US, the State is supposed to have a very high burden of proof in order to take someone's freedom from them, and for good reason. The War On Drugs, The War on Terror & The War on Porn have all already had an unhealthy effect on due process as it is, so even small protections like the one given here are good ones. As it is, there is nothing to stop a Prosecutor from pressing the charges anyway & counting on the extremely high rate of the innocent & guilty alike taking Plea Deals, so it's not like this ruling will affect very many cases anyway.

    Keep in mind that the more innocent people there are being successfully prosecuted for CP & other sex offenses, and the more the SO laws are mis-applied, the more useless the Sex Offender Registry becomes.

    All JMO

    ETA - the 'print, save or download' line is just a set of examples of usable proof, not a limitation on the types of corroboration that can be used.
    The truth usually lurks beneath the surface - look deeper!





    On and on the rain will fall
    Like tears from a star like tears from a star
    On and on the rain will say
    How fragile we are how fragile we are

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,142
    I think anyone who has been on the internet for long enough, and specifically posting in forums of missing and exploited children probably has kiddie porn images on their cache.

    There was a website that would host those kind of "angel" tributes to murdered girls - Natalee H and JonBenet were featured prominently, in soft focus, with angel wings, the whole nine yards but it was a kiddie porn site. It was a portal for non-violent but sexually graphic images of girls. After years of being an active site it's now gone. Thankfully.

    People send things in innocent looking emails or you can go on to innocent looking websites - or even porno sites that you don't know are kiddie porn - and you can end up innocently having those images in your history.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,318
    Quote Originally Posted by SkewedView View Post
    This ruling does little to protect real pedos, and goes a long way towards protecting the innocent - it revolves around images that are automatically stored in your browser's cache. Many LEAs have been saying that counts, but an innocent person can wind up with such images in their cache without even being aware of it, due to sites using hidden images & such. In addition, if someone were to run across a bad image while browsing & promptly leave the site, their cache would not reflect that. All the courts are saying is that the cache alone is not enough proof of intent - you need corroborative evidence of intent, which is very fair. After all, real pedos just can't resist holding onto such materials. Note that in the case in question, the prosecution had plenty of other, more definitive stuff to charge the man with, and those counts all stood.

    From the article:



    All JMO

    Sure doesn't sound like this was some innocent "clicked on that picture by mistake" to me:

    "Following a routine computer upgrade in 2007, Kent’s work computer was found to contain deleted evidence of more than 30,000 images of young girls, including ones depicting children “engaged in sexual intercourse with adults,” “engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse with dogs, adults and other children,” and “lewd exhibition of the exposed genitals of female children,” the high court wrote.

    The photos and videos were downloaded and saved onto Kent’s computer between 2005 and 2007, and sorted into files and documents with names like “Arina,” “Jim” and JK,” the ruling said."
    "Life is life's greatest gift. Guard the life of another creature as you would your own because it is your own. On life's scale of values, the smallest is no less precious to the creature who owns it than the largest..." Lloyd Biggle, Jr.

    Let's bring Michelle Parker home: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ichelle+parker

    All statements made by me are based on my opinion.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Orlando View Post
    Sure doesn't sound like this was some innocent "clicked on that picture by mistake" to me:

    "Following a routine computer upgrade in 2007, Kent’s work computer was found to contain deleted evidence of more than 30,000 images of young girls, including ones depicting children “engaged in sexual intercourse with adults,” “engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse with dogs, adults and other children,” and “lewd exhibition of the exposed genitals of female children,” the high court wrote.

    The photos and videos were downloaded and saved onto Kent’s computer between 2005 and 2007, and sorted into files and documents with names like “Arina,” “Jim” and JK,” the ruling said."
    Read the article again. All of the charges other than the cache ones were upheld - the cache ones were shut down because there was no other evidence directly related to those images. The court had to do that in order to not set a very dangerous precedent. In the end, dude still goes away for a long time, the innocent gain a little extra bit of protection, and prosecutors get a very reasonable restriction on their powers. I call that a wise decision, and a refreshing change from the normal rubber-stamping of State actions in the porn, drug & terror 'wars'.

    Does this mean that some pedos will get away? Sure. Better that than giving overzealous prosecutors yet more of an ability to toss the innocent in prison (as an example of innocents being victimized by prosecutors more concerned with convictions than justice, there have been numerous articles in recent years regarding prosecutors refusing to use their own resources to check for viruses, bots, hijackers etc that can cause innocents to have such material on their computers. People have gone hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt to do what the supposed 'seekers of truth' refuse to do). It's not like those that get away once won't be watched thereafter - it's only a matter of time after that before they will give in to their addiction in a manner that is more legitimately prosecutable.

    All JMO
    The truth usually lurks beneath the surface - look deeper!





    On and on the rain will fall
    Like tears from a star like tears from a star
    On and on the rain will say
    How fragile we are how fragile we are



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-12-2012, 07:24 PM
  2. FL~Michael McCarthy thinks child porn torture images are "art"
    By Missizzy in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-21-2012, 11:56 AM
  3. GUILTY IA~Edwin Donnan arrested for distribution of child porn/"G BOYS"
    By Missizzy in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-26-2012, 01:57 PM
  4. FL - 26 arrested in "Operation Safe Summer" child porn bust
    By Missizzy in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-22-2011, 10:39 PM
  5. GA - School bus driver/"Patriot Preacher" hit with child porn charges
    By Missizzy in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 02:35 AM