3 ms·

Unless you are police or a prosecutor handling evidence. Then you can look at all the child porn you want.

digler999 10y ago
Or if more than one person lives in a household where there is an alleged consumer. If it's such a "strict liability" then the whole family should be hauled off to jail (including kids, there's no exemption that children can "possess" it). * Not saying I actually want that to happen, but just pointing out that "strict liability" logic breaks down real quick.
- kaybe 10y ago
  Worse, kids can make it. What are you going to do, supervise your teenager's access to cameras 24/7? (I hope the law is sane enough here.)
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    > I hope the law is sane enough here. I can guarantee you, it isn't.
djsumdog 10y ago
There are some pretty strict limitations on this. I knew a lawyer who had to take such a defence case and he refused to look at the evidence. He also was not allowed to share the evidence with anyone in his office: no interns, paralegals, assistants .. only people who were directly involved in the prosecution. I think this might also be why Microsoft seemed to only have one individual looking for so much of this content. He might have been given specific clearance with Microsoft/the justice department (the guy that was in an article a few weeks back for suffering from PTSD from that job).
- cr0sh 10y ago
  > I knew a lawyer who had to take such a defence case and he refused to look at the evidence. While I can understand this at one level, at another it disturbs me that a lawyer hired (in some manner) for the defence would refuse to look at evidence to determine whether it met the definition of "illegality" in order to present an effective defense for the client. Without doing so, the lawyer had no way of knowing what the images consisted of - were they merely going by what the prosecutor told them? Isn't that some kind of abdication of responsibility to a proper legal defence? Could the defendant get a new trial because of this? If this was your trial, and you knew you were innocent, would you want to hear this from your defense lawyer? Or would you rather hope that the porn star in the images showed up at your trial to absolve you (which recently happened to some poor bastard)?

Or if more than one person lives in a household where there is an alleged consumer. If it's such a "strict liability" then the whole family should be hauled off to jail (including kids, there's no exemption that children can "possess" it). * Not saying I actually want that to happen, but just pointing out that "strict liability" logic breaks down real quick.

kaybe 10y ago
Worse, kids can make it. What are you going to do, supervise your teenager's access to cameras 24/7? (I hope the law is sane enough here.)
- cr0sh 10y ago
  > I hope the law is sane enough here. I can guarantee you, it isn't.

djsumdog 10y ago

There are some pretty strict limitations on this. I knew a lawyer who had to take such a defence case and he refused to look at the evidence. He also was not allowed to share the evidence with anyone in his office: no interns, paralegals, assistants .. only people who were directly involved in the prosecution. I think this might also be why Microsoft seemed to only have one individual looking for so much of this content. He might have been given specific clearance with Microsoft/the justice department (the guy that was in an article a few weeks back for suffering from PTSD from that job).

cr0sh 10y ago
> I knew a lawyer who had to take such a defence case and he refused to look at the evidence. While I can understand this at one level, at another it disturbs me that a lawyer hired (in some manner) for the defence would refuse to look at evidence to determine whether it met the definition of "illegality" in order to present an effective defense for the client. Without doing so, the lawyer had no way of knowing what the images consisted of - were they merely going by what the prosecutor told them? Isn't that some kind of abdication of responsibility to a proper legal defence? Could the defendant get a new trial because of this? If this was your trial, and you knew you were innocent, would you want to hear this from your defense lawyer? Or would you rather hope that the porn star in the images showed up at your trial to absolve you (which recently happened to some poor bastard)?