6 ms·

And yet a jury convicted him. This kind of thing is far beyond the comprehension of the common juror. Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY i

And yet a jury convicted him. This kind of thing is far beyond the comprehension of the common juror. Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace, even from thousands of miles away, I'd have to see video evidence of the defendant downloading the material as it happens before rendering such a verdict, especially if it's going to mean decades in prison.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nxzero 11y ago
In the US, juries are not required to follow the law: SOURCE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification RELATED TEXT: "A jury can similarly unjustly and illegally convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot)."
- boosting7669 11y ago
  I don't understand how this is relevant to my comment. Please explain
  - nxzero 11y ago
    Your comment appears to me to assume that if a jury knew someone was not guilt by law, that they would vote not guilt. My point is that a jury in the US can intentionally convict someone as guilty that they're aware is "legally" not guilty.
    - boosting7669 11y ago
      They can also intentionally acquit someone they know is guilty of the law simply because they don't think the law should exist, this is called jury nullification. My point was that the typical jury is just not sophisticated enough to understand how easy it is to plant digital evidence. I doubt they'd convict in a case like this believing the defendant to be innocent.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
patcheudor 11y ago
"Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace." This right here is the conversation which needs to happen around this particular topic. In the security community the topic of forensic discovery of child porn tends to get a hand-wave because child porn. It's there so someone must be guilty. The fact is, it is trivial to plant such evidence on anyone's computer and honestly, if a computer is connected to the Internet, define ownership. Is your computer connected to the Internet? Then it's not your computer. Ever used public WiFi? It's absolutely trivial for someone to inject image requests which never get rendered, but which remain in the cache. This can be done en-mass without anyone ever noticing until someone's computer gets searched. Based on digital evidence alone no one should ever be arrested, let alone convicted on these charges, but the fact is, to catch someone who is guilty is very difficult. Difficult to the degree that it should require video and/or photographic evidence of the perp at the computer looking at the images. Therefore it seems law enforcement and the justice system has decided that the easy way out is to just go with what's on the hard-drive. If a few innocent people get caught, no big deal, it's for the greater good.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  >to catch someone who is guilty is very difficult. Difficult to the degree that it should require video and/or photographic evidence of the perp at the computer looking at the images. That would be very easy to fake too.
  - patcheudor 11y ago
    I would argue that it's orders of magnitude more difficult by way of comparison to simply injecting naughty bits into an HTTP response.
- pgpd 11y ago
  How hard would it be to do a demo for jurors in a courtroom? Simple proof-of-concept getting all of them to connect to a "wifi" network which is a tethered device owned by the lawyer, have them navigate to a regular website, and then inject images for the 2nd go-around to introduce reasonable doubt?
upofadown 11y ago
Isn't mere possession illegal in the US? If so then the jury returned the correct verdict. If we don't like it then we have to fix the law.
- SeanDav 11y ago
  If the evidence was planted, then the jury most certainly did not return the correct verdict.
  - Filligree 11y ago
    Legally? I wonder. Morally you're right, but if mere possession is illegal, then I don't see how it being planted matters. If it were proven that law-enforcement agents did the planting, that would be a different matter. You could also argue about the definition of "possession", maybe... but IANAL.
    - voxic11 11y ago
      Of course it matters. Federal law specifies that the CP must be knowingly possessed. If it was planted that requirement cannot be met. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252
      - upofadown 11y ago
        The court can't read the mind of the accused. So either there is an implied level of guilt associated with mere possession or it would be impossible to ever get a conviction under that part of the law. I now agree that the "they planted it" defence would work but in practice that would be impossible to prove, which was probably what happened here.
themartorana 11y ago
Attitudes 20 years ago: "Child porn? Fry him!" Now: "Child porn? The government set him up." Obviously attitudes towards child pornographers hasn't changed, so check out how much the distrust of government has become constant and near absolute. Thanks, Snowden.
abyd 11y ago
Most people stop listening at "child porn". All the prosecution has to do is say a scary word and it's all over.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nxzero 11y ago

In the US, juries are not required to follow the law: SOURCE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification RELATED TEXT: "A jury can similarly unjustly and illegally convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot)."

boosting7669 11y ago
I don't understand how this is relevant to my comment. Please explain
- nxzero 11y ago
  Your comment appears to me to assume that if a jury knew someone was not guilt by law, that they would vote not guilt. My point is that a jury in the US can intentionally convict someone as guilty that they're aware is "legally" not guilty.
  - boosting7669 11y ago
    They can also intentionally acquit someone they know is guilty of the law simply because they don't think the law should exist, this is called jury nullification. My point was that the typical jury is just not sophisticated enough to understand how easy it is to plant digital evidence. I doubt they'd convict in a case like this believing the defendant to be innocent.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

patcheudor 11y ago

"Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace." This right here is the conversation which needs to happen around this particular topic. In the security community the topic of forensic discovery of child porn tends to get a hand-wave because child porn. It's there so someone must be guilty. The fact is, it is trivial to plant such evidence on anyone's computer and honestly, if a computer is connected to the Internet, define ownership. Is your computer connected to the Internet? Then it's not your computer. Ever used public WiFi? It's absolutely trivial for someone to inject image requests which never get rendered, but which remain in the cache. This can be done en-mass without anyone ever noticing until someone's computer gets searched. Based on digital evidence alone no one should ever be arrested, let alone convicted on these charges, but the fact is, to catch someone who is guilty is very difficult. Difficult to the degree that it should require video and/or photographic evidence of the perp at the computer looking at the images. Therefore it seems law enforcement and the justice system has decided that the easy way out is to just go with what's on the hard-drive. If a few innocent people get caught, no big deal, it's for the greater good.

alanwatts 11y ago
>to catch someone who is guilty is very difficult. Difficult to the degree that it should require video and/or photographic evidence of the perp at the computer looking at the images. That would be very easy to fake too.
- patcheudor 11y ago
  I would argue that it's orders of magnitude more difficult by way of comparison to simply injecting naughty bits into an HTTP response.
pgpd 11y ago
How hard would it be to do a demo for jurors in a courtroom? Simple proof-of-concept getting all of them to connect to a "wifi" network which is a tethered device owned by the lawyer, have them navigate to a regular website, and then inject images for the 2nd go-around to introduce reasonable doubt?

upofadown 11y ago

Isn't mere possession illegal in the US? If so then the jury returned the correct verdict. If we don't like it then we have to fix the law.

SeanDav 11y ago
If the evidence was planted, then the jury most certainly did not return the correct verdict.
- Filligree 11y ago
  Legally? I wonder. Morally you're right, but if mere possession is illegal, then I don't see how it being planted matters. If it were proven that law-enforcement agents did the planting, that would be a different matter. You could also argue about the definition of "possession", maybe... but IANAL.
  - voxic11 11y ago
    Of course it matters. Federal law specifies that the CP must be knowingly possessed. If it was planted that requirement cannot be met. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252
    - upofadown 11y ago
      The court can't read the mind of the accused. So either there is an implied level of guilt associated with mere possession or it would be impossible to ever get a conviction under that part of the law. I now agree that the "they planted it" defence would work but in practice that would be impossible to prove, which was probably what happened here.

themartorana 11y ago

Attitudes 20 years ago: "Child porn? Fry him!" Now: "Child porn? The government set him up." Obviously attitudes towards child pornographers hasn't changed, so check out how much the distrust of government has become constant and near absolute. Thanks, Snowden.

abyd 11y ago

Most people stop listening at "child porn". All the prosecution has to do is say a scary word and it's all over.