Thanks. I didn't realize that they had independent evidence that there was child porn on the device. Or at least, I didn't realize that they had valid independ

Thanks. I didn't realize that they had independent evidence that there was child porn on the device. Or at least, I didn't realize that they had valid independent evidence of that. As I understand it, they had data from a hacked version of the Freenet client, showing that his node had received pieces of child porn files. They knew that because they were serving those files, and could identify pieces by hash value. Their expert testified that, contrary to claims by the Freenet Project about random routing of file pieces, they could determine that the defendant's node was in fact the recipient, and not just a relay. But, according to the Freenet Project, that's bullshit, which is based on a misunderstanding (perhaps intentional) of the Freenet protocol and mechanism. I wonder whether they have other independent evidence that's actually valid. But these are subtle points for a judge. And I'm guessing that the defendant doesn't have the expert muscle to dispute those claims. And/or that juries could follow any of that.