4 ms·

This isn't just planting evidence of a crime. This is planting the crime itself (Possession of child porn).

by dkopi 10y ago

Paul_S 10y ago
I don't follow. How does it differ from planting drugs?
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Drug possession is not strict liability, child porn is. That means you don't need to have intention; if I email you a file and you open it, then the feds break down your door, you have committed a crime. Or rather, as long as it's on your computer (say a website downloaded it in the background), you're liable. Even if you have 100% solid proof that it wasn't your fault, you're guilty. With drugs, you can at least sometimes get off with proof that you didn't have intent.
  - revelation 10y ago
    Also with drugs, there are no autonomous search dogs constantly rummaging through your stuff. For child porn, meanwhile, every major "cloud storage" is continuously monitoring your files in a manner similar to YouTubes "content id".
    - derefr 10y ago
      Something I've been curious about for a while: does Mega do this sort of scan on the client-side before everything gets encrypted? I can't imagine law enforcement is very happy with them otherwise.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        Nope. There are open source clients that upload to Mega, and there's no way to enforce that. (See e.g. Megatools).
  - andrewpi 10y ago
    CP isn't strict liability, at least under federal law. It requires "knowing" possession.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Huh. I've seen this asserted many times, but I can't actually find an official source. http://documentmedia.com/article-permalink-1966.html http://documentmedia.com/article-permalink-1966.html says this, and http://www.austintexaslegal.com/Blog/child-pornography-laws-and-how-they-affect-you/ http://www.austintexaslegal.com/Blog/child-pornography-laws-... as well.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > Or rather, as long as it's on your computer (say a website downloaded it in the background), you're liable. Even if you have 100% solid proof that it wasn't your fault, you're guilty. Do you have a cite for the law? What you say isn't true for the England; I doubt it's true for the US. EDIT: Here's the English law. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/indecent-photographs-of-children http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crosshead... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/part/XI/crossheading/possession-of-indecent-photograph-of-child http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/part/XI/crosshea... > Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove— > (a)that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] in his possession; or > (b)that he had not himself seen the photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or > (c)that the photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
    - oarsinsync 10y ago
      > (c)that the photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time. I can't find the citation, but there was a case brought up in my uni it ethics/law module that noted that visiting a website that then downloaded something like that in the background was sufficient to disqualify that condition from applying, as there was a prior request to visit the webpage that delivered the image. even if the website wasn't visited with the intention of the image. and the person involved was jailed. they may have gotten out on appeal mind, but again, i can't remember more details than that to verify
- roflc0ptic 10y ago
  It's not. The distinction would be between planting CP and planting a murder weapon in someone's car. The weapon isn't the crime. It's evidence of a person's guilt. The CP is the crime. As would be the baggie of crack cocaine.

This isn't just planting evidence of a crime. This is planting the crime itself (Possession of child porn).

by dkopi 10y ago

This isn't just planting evidence of a crime. This is planting the crime itself (Possession of child porn).

Paul_S 10y ago

I don't follow. How does it differ from planting drugs?

ikeboy 10y ago
Drug possession is not strict liability, child porn is. That means you don't need to have intention; if I email you a file and you open it, then the feds break down your door, you have committed a crime. Or rather, as long as it's on your computer (say a website downloaded it in the background), you're liable. Even if you have 100% solid proof that it wasn't your fault, you're guilty. With drugs, you can at least sometimes get off with proof that you didn't have intent.
- revelation 10y ago
  Also with drugs, there are no autonomous search dogs constantly rummaging through your stuff. For child porn, meanwhile, every major "cloud storage" is continuously monitoring your files in a manner similar to YouTubes "content id".
  - derefr 10y ago
    Something I've been curious about for a while: does Mega do this sort of scan on the client-side before everything gets encrypted? I can't imagine law enforcement is very happy with them otherwise.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Nope. There are open source clients that upload to Mega, and there's no way to enforce that. (See e.g. Megatools).
- andrewpi 10y ago
  CP isn't strict liability, at least under federal law. It requires "knowing" possession.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Huh. I've seen this asserted many times, but I can't actually find an official source. http://documentmedia.com/article-permalink-1966.html http://documentmedia.com/article-permalink-1966.html says this, and http://www.austintexaslegal.com/Blog/child-pornography-laws-and-how-they-affect-you/ http://www.austintexaslegal.com/Blog/child-pornography-laws-... as well.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Or rather, as long as it's on your computer (say a website downloaded it in the background), you're liable. Even if you have 100% solid proof that it wasn't your fault, you're guilty. Do you have a cite for the law? What you say isn't true for the England; I doubt it's true for the US. EDIT: Here's the English law. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/indecent-photographs-of-children http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crosshead... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/part/XI/crossheading/possession-of-indecent-photograph-of-child http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/part/XI/crosshea... > Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove— > (a)that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] in his possession; or > (b)that he had not himself seen the photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or > (c)that the photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
  - oarsinsync 10y ago
    > (c)that the photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] was sent to him without any prior request made by him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time. I can't find the citation, but there was a case brought up in my uni it ethics/law module that noted that visiting a website that then downloaded something like that in the background was sufficient to disqualify that condition from applying, as there was a prior request to visit the webpage that delivered the image. even if the website wasn't visited with the intention of the image. and the person involved was jailed. they may have gotten out on appeal mind, but again, i can't remember more details than that to verify
roflc0ptic 10y ago
It's not. The distinction would be between planting CP and planting a murder weapon in someone's car. The weapon isn't the crime. It's evidence of a person's guilt. The CP is the crime. As would be the baggie of crack cocaine.