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?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Stupid sexy kids!

The sex offender locator in NYC will be brighter thatn the Sun soon.

FoxT

As internet surveillance techniques (& laws) become more comprehensive, this loophole will ultimately be closed off, I expect. (and hope..)

IM0

wtf

golden lane

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

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





ummmm..... giggity?

a change in the constitution......now!!!!!!!!

christmas2012

they are morally bankrupt - thats sickening to think there are peados getting their kicks (these are not just images you can detach yourself from,these are real children being raped and abused),its disgusting.

starbelgrade

I'd imagine that you'd have to go out of your way to even stream child pornography, which makes this law a bit dubious... surely your browser history would lay testament to what you are searching for.

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.

Nodin

Nice misleading title.

IM0

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'd imagine that you'd have to go out of your way to even stream child pornography, which makes this law a bit dubious... surely your browser history would lay testament to what you are searching for.

lmao, if only you knew stablegrade, if only you knew

Owen_S

People who are shocked by this probably don't know how common it is for people to be redirected from compromised websites or have malware on their computer.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Article linked to in the OP wrote:

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.

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?

Havermeyer

benwavner wrote: »

The sex offender locator in NYC will be brighter thatn the Sun soon.

Would it not be the opposite? Seeing as they won't be prosecuted there will not be an offense and, as a result, no offenders?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

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.

Hmmmm, is it good news for you????????:P

Praetorian Saighdiuir

nummnutts wrote: »

Would it not be the opposite? Seeing as they won't be prosecuted there will not be an offense and, as a result, no offenders?

No, it means that every convicted pedo is now going to move to NYC because they have a carte blanche when it comes to pics in their cache.

superluck

The reason judges are soft on pedophiles is because a lot of them probably look at child porn themselves.

hooradiation

superluck wrote: »

The reason judges are soft on pedophiles is because a lot of them probably look at child porn themselves.

ITT people fail at understanding anything.

abouttobebanned

Those kids were just resting on my account father

downwithpeace

Just what the world needs, another loop hole for a despicable crime.

eth0

FoxT wrote: »

As internet surveillance techniques (& laws) become more comprehensive, this loophole will ultimately be closed off, I expect. (and hope..)

You are actually wishing for this big brother invasion of privacy that people have been trying to hold off for years?

A few lads tossing off to some porn doesn't justify the kind of mass surveillance you seem to be supporting. The poor lads in Egypt would never have been able to start their revolution if the internet was locked down to that extent.

superluck

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.

IM0

I blame pete townsend..

Killer Wench

I understand the intent of this law. Recently, friends and I stumbled across a child porn profile on facebook (the owner usurped a corporate page with images from its profile). It had images of naked little boys in various poses. We all reported the page to facebook and we all submitted the public details to local law enforcement agencies.


In truth, we all viewed it but our intent wasn't to distribute it or take pleasure in it; we were trying to get it removed. So, this law could help those of us who find ourselves unknowingly or unwillingly exposed to this type of crap.

El Weirdo

superluck wrote: »

...seriously, the law is soft on pedophiles because those who make up the laws are probably at it themselves.

So now it's judges and legislators that are all paedophiles?

Spread

IM0 wrote: »

I blame pete townsend..

WHO?

Radharc na Sleibhte

Spread wrote: »

WHO?

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

Dartz

These individual clearly need a visit from this fellow


In all seriousness, it makes perfect sense. It means people won't be criminalised by the actions of a troll.

carbon nanotube

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

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





ummmm..... giggity?

garry glitter is on his way

1ZRed

I can't download movies and games for free anymore but I could watch kiddy porn in NY as compensation?
Yep that's perfect sense at work, right there:rolleyes:

FlyingIrishMan

Who downloads their porn now anyway...

Overheal

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Who downloads their porn now anyway...

for the most part pedophiles who want access to their perversions once these websites have been aggressively pulled down.

There are some good reasons to let the govt have some control over the web.

hooradiation

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.

CrazyRabbit

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.

flanum

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

Spread

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!

skinny90

dont know why but all i could think of was this

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

omgitsthelazor

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.

omgitsthelazor

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.

Born to Die

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

Beefy78

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.

seamus

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.

danniemcq

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.

pickarooney

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?

Mr.Biscuits

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'.

seamus

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.

Kev_2012

YOCK!

Masteroid

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.

Stiffler2

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.

Dave!

Thread disappoints

Fighting Irish

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: