4 ms·
It gives you plausible deniability, which is the point. Nobody can prove you really did those searches (though you can't prove the converse either).
by ehsanu1 15y ago
It gives you plausible deniability, which is the point. Nobody can prove you really did those searches (though you can't prove the converse either).
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- knowtheory 15y agoIt might give you plausible deniability in front of a jury (emphasis on might), but that says nothing about assumptions or biases made by law enforcement officials or prosecutors.
- swombat 15y agoYes, plausible deniability is pretty useless after the police have arrested you at 6am in your home after bashing down your door, and all your neighbours have found out that you've been accused of being a pedophile.
- abalashov 15y agoTo go with what the sibling poster said: when you're so much as accused of paedophilia in this country, any sort of real expectation of due process or rational justice goes to shit. Plausible deniability won't be of much help.
- jellicle 15y agoActually it gives you plausible culpability, not plausible deniability. This idea that people actually don't get charged/tried/convicted because the evidence is a little flimsy is completely false. What you say: "I did this cookie thing. I never searched for any sort of kiddie porn on the internet." What the jury of your peers hears: "Child molester trying to pretend he didn't do it." What the judge does: Extra time in prison because you aren't taking responsibility for your crimes. Enjoy your prison sentence.
- snowwrestler 15y agoPlausible deniability is needed when you want to hide your role in something. Since I'm not sharing kiddie porn, I have actual deniability. No TOR traffic needed.
- Dylan16807 15y agoReal does not imply convincing, sadly.
- yaix 15y agoThe question is, plausible to whom? If the judge doesn't get it, you have a problem.