3 ms·
"My completely amateur thoughts: If they already can prove he has child porn, then they don't need the additional evidence. If they do need the additional evide
by nickpsecurity 10y ago
"My completely amateur thoughts: If they already can prove he has child porn, then they don't need the additional evidence. If they do need the additional evidence, then he is incriminating himself."
That's a good point. They either have proof he downloaded child porn or they don't. They're definitely trying to do more than prove it. Probably set a precedent increasing their power as usual.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago"so you, Mr expert witness, are telling me that hashes collide? What's that you say, there are actually people who actively look for and produce such hashes for fun?? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury..." And so on. I'm pretty sure pedophile is near the top of the "you better make damn sure they don't get off" list.
- undersuit 10y ago>I'm pretty sure pedophile is near the top of the "you better make damn sure they don't get off" list. It's not illegal to be a pedophile. It's illegal to possess child pornography.
- PeterisP 10y agoThey have some evidence that he downloaded child porn, but it's the trial and jury that will evaluate if it's sufficient beyond all reasonable doubt. If they believe that current evidence has some chance of being not sufficient and there's extra incriminating evidence, then it's their right and duty to obtain that before passing it on to the court. You can't answer the question "if they can prove" before court, as it's decided only then. You must finish the evidence gathering before you have a judgement on that.