New York court rules that viewing child pornography online is not illegal

[j]

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/viewing-child-pornography-not-crime-according-york-court-165025919.html

I know we discuss this topic periodically here, but the interesting distinction made in the article is as follows:

The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image.
"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.

-J

[ReaPsTA]

Nothing wrong with this.

[Adami]

I now I'll get flamed for this, but that's a good decision. Then again I don't make my decisions like this on strong emotions like most people do.

[El Barto]

That's an interesting distinction, and pretty sound logic.  The crime is for the possession, not the viewing. 

edit: upon further reflection, this is flawed.  For the amount of time that the image/video is on one's screen, that person is in possession.  The law doesn't say that you can possess it temporarily before deleting it. 

[TL]

My guess is that the intent of the law is to avoid charging someone as a sex offender if they come across an image accidentally, and it ends up in their browser cache as a result.

[Nick]

Seems reasonable.

[theseoafs]

Seems reasonable.

[Sigz]

I don't really see how anyone could be against this. If you are, then you'd agree that you should be for child porn charges if I post child pornography right below this post.

[Super Dude]

Hurry, alert Numbers.

[snapple]

I can only say "GOOD!". On an anonymous posting board I go on, where I pick the boards of video games and sports, a little site called "reddit" enjoys raiding with pictures. The mods do what they can, but I'm always fucking worried. It's bad enough to actually have seen thumbnails (thank god only that) but if legal things came up... it's like... I wasn't there to look at it? I just wanted to talk about my Yankees or Skyrim mods!

[BlobVanDam]

After reading the full thing, this seems like a reasonable rule to me, rather than trying to enforce it as a black and white law without common sense. It's just a fair leeway for accidentally stumbling across something illegal, vs actively downloading and storing it. Because in this day and age, it is quite possible to accidentally come across things you don't intend to view, and files can stay in the cache for a while. I don't know why your computer would be suspected and searched if this was the case, but at least there is a safety net.
Hopefully they're smart enough to not allow this law to be exploited so someone can to try and store their porn in a cache folder and claim it was an accident, because it would be easy enough to tell the difference.

[kári]

The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image.
"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Ciparick wrote in the decision.

I think that's the important part here. Just having one such picture in your browser cache does not mean that you were actively trying to look for child porn. But when your IP adress shows up on numerous sites known for CP, or your browser history is full of suggestive URLs, then having a CP picture in your browser cache is very much evidence that you were trying to view CP.

[Rathma]

That's an interesting distinction, and pretty sound logic.  The crime is for the possession, not the viewing. 

edit: upon further reflection, this is flawed.  For the amount of time that the image/video is on one's screen, that person is in possession.  The law doesn't say that you can possess it temporarily before deleting it.

By that logic streaming a song is the same thing as temporarily possessing it, which seems pretty weird.

[El Barto]

That's an interesting distinction, and pretty sound logic.  The crime is for the possession, not the viewing. 

edit: upon further reflection, this is flawed.  For the amount of time that the image/video is on one's screen, that person is in possession.  The law doesn't say that you can possess it temporarily before deleting it.

By that logic streaming a song is the same thing as temporarily possessing it, which seems pretty weird.

You're right, it does seem pretty weird.  The thing is, in the era we live in things evolve quicker than norms can be realized.  Lots of concepts in the digital age seem weird.  We will continue to come across instances where black appears white and we'll keep having to rethink concepts in a more modern context.  In this example, I suppose that streaming a song would be considered possession, albeit only for the time you're listening to it.

As for my statement and how it pertains to the matter at hand, I both agree and disagree with the judge depending upon the context.  As people have been pointing out here, there's no reason why the simple possession of fragments in your cache should be considered proof of guilt.  However, if there's other circumstantial evidence that you have an interest in such material, then I would consider it proof that you were at one point in possession. 

[ReaPsTA]

The thing is, in the era we live in things evolve quicker than norms can be realized.

Not strictly true.  Anyone who is 27ish and younger grew up enough with the internet to internalize how quickly technological change causes societal change.  When new technology is created, the norms are quickly created.  The rest of society just sucks at catching up.  This is why you have musicians who still aren't on Spotify.  Or copyright laws that were outdated a decade ago that are even more outdated now.

[El Barto]

People your age don't constitute the norm **breathes sigh of relief**.  And even so, the evolution of technology can still outpace even the people who work with it every day.  Regardless, what we're talking about are concepts that exist outside of the techno-world.  Possession, in this instance.  The definition was quite different 20 years ago than it is today.  That's why the case a couple of months ago about mortgage-fraud-girl and her encrypted HDD was so damn fascinating.  Despite the fact that there were countless analogues going back hundreds of years, it really was virgin territory in it's current state.

[Orbert]

I would guess that the vast majority of lawmakers are not "27ish and younger".

[El Barto]

I would guess that the vast majority of lawmakers are not "27ish and younger".

Certainly not, and that raises a fairly fucked up problem.  Nobody wants 25 year olds running the country; they're idiots.  However, the people we have are far too old to understand the world in which we live.  That's why you have nimrods in Washington passing idiotic laws pertaining to the internet.  Hell, I'm 41 and I'm starting to get outpaced by modern technology.  In another 15 years I'll be one of those old farts we used to make fun of because they couldn't set the clock on their VCR.  So who is fit to make laws?  Create a window between 28-38? 

[Orbert]

I agree, it's a hell of a problem, for the reasons you've cited, and I have no idea what the solution is.

[snapple]

Barto/Snapple 2012. Old fart and a young gun. Plus, sanctioned prison fights.

[Scheavo]

Nobody wants 25 year olds running the country; they're idiots. 

Who isn't an idiot, though? Seems like what's more important isn't someone's age, but who that person actually is. I don't know if they're 18 or 90, if they have the right attitude, and the ability to think, their input is valuable. You do need diversity, but there's no "prime age." You need the young people to challenge and come up with new ideas, and you need the old wisdom to make sure the new idea's aren't just insane.

Barto/Snapple 2012. Old fart and a young gun. Plus, sanctioned prison fights.

You gotta be at least 35 to be President, though it  more like 45 in reality.

[snapple]

I'll get a fake birth certificate from whoeevr did Obama's...

[Scheavo]

I'll get a fake birth certificate from whoeevr did Obama's...

Spose you'll also then need a time machine to insert an appropriate newspaper headline.

Can I use that time machine when you're done?

[skydivingninja]

My guess is that the intent of the law is to avoid charging someone as a sex offender if they come across an image accidentally, and it ends up in their browser cache as a result.

This, and its good that this sort of thing is thought about.  Only problem is that someone could put such an image on a free hosting site and you could bookmark it and look at it to your heart's content, but not get charged, or am I missing something?

[jammindude]

My guess is that the intent of the law is to avoid charging someone as a sex offender if they come across an image accidentally, and it ends up in their browser cache as a result.

This, and its good that this sort of thing is thought about.  Only problem is that someone could put such an image on a free hosting site and you could bookmark it and look at it to your heart's content, but not get charged, or am I missing something?

In theory, I believe you're right.   (although *bookmarking* the page, as opposed to simply having it in your browsers history *might* be something the prosecuting attorneys could (and *should*) pounce on)   

But hopefully this will also lead to better methods and harsher penalties for *the owners of the sites*...

And while we're on the subject.   I wonder how this law will effect other incidental innocents?    Example:  (and I don't remember all the details, so forgive me if I'm not getting my facts straight)   I seem to remember something on the news about a guy who owned some waterfront property out here, and his computer was not password protected.   One day, his house is raided because they've been tracking child porn to his computer.   After a thorough investigation, it was discovered that he was innocent.  Someone in a boat was remotely accessing his computer to traffic child porn around the world.    The guy had been a hub of one of the biggest child porn rings this area had ever seen...and didn't even know it.      It was several years ago...so I don't know how the case turned out.   But you can bet the guy started password protecting his computer after that.

[Rathma]

Seems like what's more important isn't someone's age, but who that person actually is.

[Ħ]

For the amount of time that the image/video is on one's screen, that person is in possession.  The law doesn't say that you can possess it temporarily before deleting it. 

Images are saved as temporary files, aren't they? I can see where someone might get linked to a site accidentally, so maybe there should be some sort of 'time-elapsed' clause, but other than that, viewing child porn is totally unjustifiable.

[El Barto]

For the amount of time that the image/video is on one's screen, that person is in possession.  The law doesn't say that you can possess it temporarily before deleting it. 

Images are saved as temporary files, aren't they? I can see where someone might get linked to a site accidentally, so maybe there should be some sort of 'time-elapsed' clause, but other than that, viewing child porn is totally unjustifiable.

I believe that it's those temporary files that are at the heart of the issue in this case.  The judge ruled that those lingering temp files couldn't be used as proof that he had possessed CP.  Again, I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning since it is proof that the person at one time possessed it, but as others have pointed out it's a matter of context.  It certainly isn't proof that the person intentionally possessed it, and I don't think anybody wants to see people convicted for accidentally seeing it before moving on. 

[Scheavo]

For the amount of time that the image/video is on one's screen, that person is in possession.  The law doesn't say that you can possess it temporarily before deleting it. 

Images are saved as temporary files, aren't they? I can see where someone might get linked to a site accidentally, so maybe there should be some sort of 'time-elapsed' clause, but other than that, viewing child porn is totally unjustifiable.

I believe that it's those temporary files that are at the heart of the issue in this case.  The judge ruled that those lingering temp files couldn't be used as proof that he had possessed CP.  Again, I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning since it is proof that the person at one time possessed it, but as others have pointed out it's a matter of context.  It certainly isn't proof that the person intentionally possessed it, and I don't think anybody wants to see people convicted for accidentally seeing it before moving on.

The judge is basically ruling that those temp files, even though we would classically say are possessed, are not what we mean by possession, and so it doesn't count. Instead of just enforcing the law verbatim, he's applying it to the actual situation.

Hopefully something like this becomes precedent. It's how it should work in the digital age, as everyone here can agree.

[Ħ]

But if someone continually owns temp files of child porn, that should be a crime. So you have to draw the line somewhere...

[jammindude]

But if someone continually owns temp files of child porn, that should be a crime. So you have to draw the line somewhere...

Well...they just *did* draw the line somewhere, but I think you're saying that you don't agree with where they put the line.

[El Barto]

But if someone continually owns temp files of child porn, that should be a crime. So you have to draw the line somewhere...

If someone "continually owns temp files of child porn," then you should damn sure be able to put together a better case than just the contents of his mozilla cache.  That's just called basic police work.  I think the point here is that it should require more evidence than just the cache, and if Johnny can't find anything else, then they have no business hassling you. 

[Ħ]

But does anyone really download porn anymore?

[El Barto]

What the hell kinda question is that?

[Ħ]

It's a good question. I doubt most viewers bring anything to their hard drive.

We wouldn't want anyone to circumvent the system and just stream temporary files all day long for their viewing pleasure with the assurance that those files can't be used against them.