6 ms·

>We don't even mention the giant logical leap from finding someone possessing CP to automatically considering them a child molester, yet someone posessing an ac

by slg 5y ago

>We don't even mention the giant logical leap from finding someone possessing CP to automatically considering them a child molester, yet someone posessing an action movie is not considered a murderer. This is a wild and in my opinion a wrongheaded analogy. Possessing CP is a crime by itself. It doesn't matter if the person possessing is actually a molester or not. It is just like the possession of drugs being illegal and it does not matter whether the person has actually taken or plans to take those drugs.

cblconfederate 5y ago
Yeah it wasn't meant to be an analogy. For example consider a real murder video, is its posession illegal and does it mean its owner should be a murder suspect?
- slg 5y ago
  You are still falling into the same line of thinking here. The person isn't arrested because we assume they are a molester. They are arrested for possessing illegal material. Your argument here really sounds like you are suggesting that CP should be legal and it is the action of molesting that should be illegal. I don't think you would find many people who agree with that. Society has decided both are separate crimes and while there is likely large overlap, overlap is not required to be charged for either crime individually.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    > Society has decided both are separate crimes Actually it's legislators and the courts that come up with these laws and they are complicated. The question is if these laws reduce child abuse or simply increase spying, and in the end what is the acceptable balance between these two.
    - slg 5y ago
      Legislators are a proxy for society. Do you believe that if you polled the US that any sizable portion of the country would be in support of legalizing CP?
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        In liberal democracies legislators also protect fundamental rights from the whims of the majority. > if you polled the US that any sizable portion No, but they also would agree to that they should have an option to keep their data privately. Maybe the public should be polled about this tradeoff? For example the case of virtual CP has an interesting legal history https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/internet-first-amendment/virtual-child-pornography/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...
        slg 5y ago
        >No, but they also wouldn't consent to having no option left to record their thoughts privately. Maybe the public should be polled about this tradeoff? It is fine if this is your argument, but you don't have to wrap this argument in with the very legality of CP. You can acknowledge something is and should be a crime while also being against these type of automated dragnets to find people guilty of said crime.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        > something is and should be a crime while also being against these type of automated But there is a clear tradeoff between the two so saying that would be a useless platitude. If we really see the internet as an extension of our vocal chords, then we should have individual rights to it, especially considering the fact that the internet infrastructure is not provided by the governments themselves, only the spying is.
        slg 5y ago
        I don't know what to say to you if you consider someone voicing opposition to this move by Apple as a "useless platitude" if they don't also believe that we have a constitutional right to post CP on the internet.
int_19h 5y ago
The worst thing about it is that CP possession is a strict liability crime in most jurisdictions. Meaning that prosecution doesn't have to prove intent - if they can find it on your machine, you're guilty regardless of how it got there.
- anonuser123456 5y ago
  In criminal law you must be aware of an item for it to be under your possession. If someone plants illegal content on your computer, and you are unaware, you aren't legally in possession.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    "Typically in criminal law, the defendant's awareness of what he is doing would not negate a strict liability mens rea (for example, being in possession of drugs will typically result in criminal liability, regardless of whether the defendant knows that he is in possession of the drugs)." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability
    - anonuser123456 5y ago
      Note the word 'typically'. The purpose of strict liability in possession is to prevent the defense that someone does not know the legal status of an item in their possession. It does NOT prevent the defense that someone does not _know_ something to be in their possession. For example, it is not a defense to have drugs and claim "but I didn't know they were illegal". It is a defense to claim "I did not know they were there." In drug cases with actual possession, it is difficult to support a defense of "I didn't know they were there", which is why charges typically result in criminal liability. They drugs were physically on you, and unless you have evidence that someone planted them, it is unlikely you could establish reasonable doubt. But in cases of electronic material for networked devices, there is most certainly an affirmative defense to counter actual possession and constructive possession. Computer devices are hacked all the time, and network & device logs exist. For example, if a prosecutor agrees to the fact that a defendant had no knowledge of the material, a judge would toss the case and a jury would not convict you. The law is not meant to pedantically convict you of non-crimes.

by slg 5y ago

cblconfederate 5y ago

Yeah it wasn't meant to be an analogy. For example consider a real murder video, is its posession illegal and does it mean its owner should be a murder suspect?

slg 5y ago
You are still falling into the same line of thinking here. The person isn't arrested because we assume they are a molester. They are arrested for possessing illegal material. Your argument here really sounds like you are suggesting that CP should be legal and it is the action of molesting that should be illegal. I don't think you would find many people who agree with that. Society has decided both are separate crimes and while there is likely large overlap, overlap is not required to be charged for either crime individually.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  > Society has decided both are separate crimes Actually it's legislators and the courts that come up with these laws and they are complicated. The question is if these laws reduce child abuse or simply increase spying, and in the end what is the acceptable balance between these two.
  - slg 5y ago
    Legislators are a proxy for society. Do you believe that if you polled the US that any sizable portion of the country would be in support of legalizing CP?
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      In liberal democracies legislators also protect fundamental rights from the whims of the majority. > if you polled the US that any sizable portion No, but they also would agree to that they should have an option to keep their data privately. Maybe the public should be polled about this tradeoff? For example the case of virtual CP has an interesting legal history https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/internet-first-amendment/virtual-child-pornography/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...
      - slg 5y ago
        >No, but they also wouldn't consent to having no option left to record their thoughts privately. Maybe the public should be polled about this tradeoff? It is fine if this is your argument, but you don't have to wrap this argument in with the very legality of CP. You can acknowledge something is and should be a crime while also being against these type of automated dragnets to find people guilty of said crime.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        > something is and should be a crime while also being against these type of automated But there is a clear tradeoff between the two so saying that would be a useless platitude. If we really see the internet as an extension of our vocal chords, then we should have individual rights to it, especially considering the fact that the internet infrastructure is not provided by the governments themselves, only the spying is.
        slg 5y ago
        I don't know what to say to you if you consider someone voicing opposition to this move by Apple as a "useless platitude" if they don't also believe that we have a constitutional right to post CP on the internet.

int_19h 5y ago

The worst thing about it is that CP possession is a strict liability crime in most jurisdictions. Meaning that prosecution doesn't have to prove intent - if they can find it on your machine, you're guilty regardless of how it got there.

anonuser123456 5y ago
In criminal law you must be aware of an item for it to be under your possession. If someone plants illegal content on your computer, and you are unaware, you aren't legally in possession.
- int_19h 5y ago
  "Typically in criminal law, the defendant's awareness of what he is doing would not negate a strict liability mens rea (for example, being in possession of drugs will typically result in criminal liability, regardless of whether the defendant knows that he is in possession of the drugs)." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability
  - anonuser123456 5y ago
    Note the word 'typically'. The purpose of strict liability in possession is to prevent the defense that someone does not know the legal status of an item in their possession. It does NOT prevent the defense that someone does not _know_ something to be in their possession. For example, it is not a defense to have drugs and claim "but I didn't know they were illegal". It is a defense to claim "I did not know they were there." In drug cases with actual possession, it is difficult to support a defense of "I didn't know they were there", which is why charges typically result in criminal liability. They drugs were physically on you, and unless you have evidence that someone planted them, it is unlikely you could establish reasonable doubt. But in cases of electronic material for networked devices, there is most certainly an affirmative defense to counter actual possession and constructive possession. Computer devices are hacked all the time, and network & device logs exist. For example, if a prosecutor agrees to the fact that a defendant had no knowledge of the material, a judge would toss the case and a jury would not convict you. The law is not meant to pedantically convict you of non-crimes.