New York man convicted on over 100 counts of child pornography

[Romo 2 Austin]

The line for acceptable behavior when it comes to child pornography just got blurrier in New York. The state's highest court just ruled that viewing child porn online isn't a crime, the Associated Press reports.

The decision came down in a hearing for James D. Kent. In 2007 a virus scan of Kent's computer uncovered child porn. Kent, 65, a former professor of public administration at Marist College, was subsequently convicted of 134 counts of possessing child porn and two counts of procuring it. He was sentenced to one to three years imprisonment.

Click for more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/10/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-decided-idUS26525766220120510


I wasn't sure if this would be considered political or not since it was done by the courts rather than by a legislative entity and I am pretty sure it is as close to as universal as it can be that child pornography should not be legal.

[jimnabby]

Your title is pretty misleading. The article makes it clear that possessing it is a crime in New York and procuring it is a crime in New York (and of course creating it and distributing it are crimes). They overturned two of the 136 counts on the basis that simply viewing something on a web page doesn't count as "possession" as the law is currently written. I would expect the legislature to address that, presumably be explicitly outlawing "viewing" of it.

[tomson75]

Disgusting.

[tupperware]

Disgusting.

.....

Did you read it?

[tomson75]

.....

Did you read it?

Just the excerpt. The whole idea is disgusting to me.

[Reality]

I can tell some of you either have not read about this case or have no real understanding how the web works. The scary thing about the internet, the web in particular, is that you are literally giving partial control of your computer away each time you visit a web site. Browser bugs and exploits usually carry the headlines, but people have no idea how vulnerable you are to old pre-internet laws.

While I have not read the linked article, I have read other articles on the ruling and I can tell you that the reasoning behind the judge's ruling is sound. Because the images were found in the browser's cached area, you cannot treat that as possession as defined by the law. Now I would turn in my best friend or a family member if I found them to possess child porn. I have zero tolerance for it. But the the way the web is designed literally puts you at risk every time you visit a site.

For example, let's say I find out you work at Apple. If you visit this site, I can easily flood your browser cache with a ton of anti-Apple images without you ever knowing it. I could then inform Apple IT department that someone from your work IP address is spamming my site with anti-Apple and hateful Steve Jobs images and we need them to put a stop to it. They would scan the computer and find a ton of images named like "ding_dong_steve_jobs_is_dead.png" and likely fire you over it.

Another thing I could do is to flood your work computer with porn images linked from some of the well known porn sites on the internet. Again, I can make sure you never see them yourself so you have no idea and even if you delete your browser cache, if your IT department tracks bandwidth and/or web site usage, your IP address will show up as visiting those well known porn sites thousands of times even though you never typed in their URL or clicked on a link to their site. Most internet users have no idea that off-linking a single image from another site uses the exact same connection method as actually visiting that site directly. Next thing you know your boss is calling you into their office to chew you out or fire you.

#reality

[CowboyWay]

heckuva explanation reality. Thanks.

[tupperware]

Just the excerpt. The whole idea is disgusting to me.

What idea?

[cowboy_ron]

Our Lawmakers everywhere have lost their minds

[tupperware]

Someone sends cowboy_ron and tomson75 illegal images via email with the title "Some Cowboy pictures I took at the stadium" cowboy_ron and tomson75 open those emails and quickly see the images weren't what they said they were going to be, so they close the email immediately and delete it.

cowboys_ron and tomson75 go to jail.

Does that explain the situation better?

[Trendnet]

Someone sends cowboy_ron and tomson75 illegal images via email with the title "Some Cowboy pictures I took at the stadium" cowboy_ron and tomson75 open those emails and quickly see the images weren't what they said they were going to be, so they close the email immediately and delete it.

cowboys_ron and tomson75 go to jail.

Does that explain the situation better?

No. Because I only read headlines.

[casmith07]

Your title is pretty misleading. The article makes it clear that possessing it is a crime in New York and procuring it is a crime in New York (and of course creating it and distributing it are crimes). They overturned two of the 136 counts on the basis that simply viewing something on a web page doesn't count as "possession" as the law is currently written. I would expect the legislature to address that, presumably be explicitly outlawing "viewing" of it.

This. I can't believe you posted this. Misleading title is misleading.

[burmafrd]

This. I can't believe you posted this. Misleading title is misleading.

he does not always think before he posts

[rkell87]

he does not ever think before he posts
fify.

[Romo 2 Austin]

I can tell some of you either have not read about this case or have no real understanding how the web works. The scary thing about the internet, the web in particular, is that you are literally giving partial control of your computer away each time you visit a web site. Browser bugs and exploits usually carry the headlines, but people have no idea how vulnerable you are to old pre-internet laws.

While I have not read the linked article, I have read other articles on the ruling and I can tell you that the reasoning behind the judge's ruling is sound. Because the images were found in the browser's cached area, you cannot treat that as possession as defined by the law. Now I would turn in my best friend or a family member if I found them to possess child porn. I have zero tolerance for it. But the the way the web is designed literally puts you at risk every time you visit a site.

For example, let's say I find out you work at Apple. If you visit this site, I can easily flood your browser cache with a ton of anti-Apple images without you ever knowing it. I could then inform Apple IT department that someone from your work IP address is spamming my site with anti-Apple and hateful Steve Jobs images and we need them to put a stop to it. They would scan the computer and find a ton of images named like "ding_dong_steve_jobs_is_dead.png" and likely fire you over it.

Another thing I could do is to flood your work computer with porn images linked from some of the well known porn sites on the internet. Again, I can make sure you never see them yourself so you have no idea and even if you delete your browser cache, if your IT department tracks bandwidth and/or web site usage, your IP address will show up as visiting those well known porn sites thousands of times even though you never typed in their URL or clicked on a link to their site. Most internet users have no idea that off-linking a single image from another site uses the exact same connection method as actually visiting that site directly. Next thing you know your boss is calling you into their office to chew you out or fire you.

#reality

Great explanation. Thank you Reality.

[vta]

I'm not sure why the original title was initially considered misleading; what it has been replaced with isn't even remotely like the very title of the article: Viewing Child Porn Not a State Crime: NY Appeals Court (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/10/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-decided-idUS26525766220120510).

Even further, the article states that the man in question did in fact look at child porn and that it simply wasn't a matter of a browser cache attack. It blurs the line between possession and procurement, opening a pretty unacceptable breach in the fact that simply 'looking' as I may 'look' at a yahoo page, makes it okay, because you didn't really procure it.

Let's all look forward to new and improved 'browser cache' arguments from pedophiles in the future.

[Reality]

I'm not sure why the original title was initially considered misleading; what it has been replaced with isn't even remotely like the very title of the article: Viewing Child Porn Not a State Crime: NY Appeals Court (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/10/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-decided-idUS26525766220120510).

Even further, the article states that the man in question did in fact look at child porn and that it simply wasn't a matter of a browser cache attack. It blurs the line between possession and procurement, opening a pretty unacceptable breach in the fact that simply 'looking' as I may 'look' at a yahoo page, makes it okay, because you didn't really procure it.

Let's all look forward to new and improved 'browser cache' arguments from pedophiles in the future.

I understand your angle, but you really are not grasping what is being said.

First, the laws need to be changed, there is no doubt about that. That being said, the browser cache should be admissible as evidence, but not in the sense of possession, but rather as a log/trace of part of a larger evidence chain used to prove the defendant is guilty. The browser cache should play the same role as web history and ISP logs would.

It would be very easy to set up a domain like "randomfunnyjoke.com" and have it redirect to a hate group's website or some deviant porn site. If you tried visiting randomfunnyjoke.com and it redirected you to the other site and the browser cache was all that was needed to not only prove intent but also possession of hate or obscene content, images, etc. then you would be guilty.

No one is disputing that the guy was guilty and should be sent away for a very long time if not for life. The laws just need to be better defined to adapt to the way technology works. This judge's ruling will most likely lead to that happening and very quickly given the media's attention and public outrage over it.

#reality

[tomson75]

Someone sends cowboy_ron and tomson75 illegal images via email with the title "Some Cowboy pictures I took at the stadium" cowboy_ron and tomson75 open those emails and quickly see the images weren't what they said they were going to be, so they close the email immediately and delete it.

cowboys_ron and tomson75 go to jail.

Does that explain the situation better?

No. Because I only read headlines.


I was referring to the "idea" of child pornography in general. I don't particularly enjoy reading anything pertaining to the topic. Regardless of intent or content.

Sorry my post didn't conform to your posting specifications....next time I'll be sure to elaborate.

[vta]

I understand your angle, but you really are not grasping what is being said.

First, the laws need to be changed, there is no doubt about that. That being said, the browser cache should be admissible as evidence, but not in the sense of possession, but rather as a log/trace of part of a larger evidence chain used to prove the defendant is guilty. The browser cache should play the same role as web history and ISP logs would.

It would be very easy to set up a domain like "randomfunnyjoke.com" and have it redirect to a hate group's website or some deviant porn site. If you tried visiting randomfunnyjoke.com and it redirected you to the other site and the browser cache was all that was needed to not only prove intent but also possession of hate or obscene content, images, etc. then you would be guilty.

No one is disputing that the guy was guilty and should be sent away for a very long time if not for life. The laws just need to be better defined to adapt to the way technology works. This judge's ruling will most likely lead to that happening and very quickly given the media's attention and public outrage over it.

#reality

I do understand that visiting any number of so-called humor sites could put some junk in your cache ( I see the pop-ups), but is it possible a random redirecting domain will have such a dominant effect on browser cache that it won't be clear that it's not the persons normal browsing activity?

What seems to be being said in this case, is that the browser cache is not the same as web history and ISP logs and the guy is not responsible in those instances. Am I getting that correct?

[CowboyMcCoy]

heckuva explanation reality. Thanks.

It's the truth too. The internet is dangerous. It's why you frequent sites like his site and not some of the other trolls who frequent this board. There are dishonest people everywhere....

[Reality]

I do understand that visiting any number of so-called humor sites could put some junk in your cache ( I see the pop-ups),

Actually, I am not referring to popups at all. If you visit a site I run, I can easily put any image on your computer that I want without you ever knowing it and that does not require a well skilled developer either.

but is it possible a random redirecting domain will have such a dominant effect on browser cache that it won't be clear that it's not the persons normal browsing activity?

Most people, even many computer/tech savvy people do not understand the underneath process of the web. For example, when you visit a typical site, your browser actually makes several connections to the web server, not just one. If the browser is trying to view a page, let's say home page, it first requests that page from the server. The server receives the request and determines what type of file it is. In the case of most home pages, the file will be a "text/html" file. Once the browser has that file, it then parses it and loads any additional items it needs. Typically this will be at least one or more CSS (.css) files, likely javascript framework and/or script (.js) files, a logo image (.jpg/.png/.gif) file, advertisements and possibly a few button images.

Each of those items including the original html page request are all separate requests that are treated the exact same by the browser and web server. From a connection and download standpoint, the type of file does not matter at all to the web server and your browser. Once your browser has downloaded the file, it then processes the file based on the type of file it is, but the download process treated the .html, .css, .js, .png, etc. files as generic requests and transfers.

The reason the web concept is so powerful and has grown so popular is that it truly acts like a web. You can make a page on one site with a logo image from another site, a javascript framework from google's hosting service, and button from yet another hosting service. In other words, everything on a web page can be hosted on the same server or spread out through the internet.

For example, let's say I was mad at you or wanted to have fun with you. I could go register a domain called "vta-loves-porn.com" and then put all of the images from CZ on that domain. That site may be on the CZ servers or I could host the images on servers in another country. It would not matter. To you and everyone else, they would never know unless they checked their browser history or browser cache. I could also leave all of the images where they are but simply rename them to something like "vta-loves-porn.jpg" and anyone visiting the site would have images with that kind of filename in their browser cache.

What seems to be being said in this case, is that the browser cache is not the same as web history and ISP logs and the guy is not responsible in those instances. Am I getting that correct?

In this case, the judge ruled that the browser cache does not meet the requirements of "possession" as defined by current laws. From what I read, he did not state that the browser cache could not be used as evidence against the defendant with regards to proof that he viewed the content. Only that it could not be used to constitute possession. Now if the guy had saved any of the images, that would constitute possession. Browser caching is a byproduct of browser technologies used to improve web surfing speed and performance. Just viewing the content though I would assume carries very harsh punishments so the guy is still very guilty.

I worry more about how vulnerable everyone will be if the laws are not better adapted and defined with the technology available today and in the future.

#reality

[TheCount]

I was referring to the "idea" of child pornography in general. I don't particularly enjoy reading anything pertaining to the topic. Regardless of intent or content.

Sorry my post didn't conform to your posting specifications....next time I'll be sure to elaborate.

They know what you meant, they are just giving you a hard time because you posted without reading the article.

[Seven]

They know what you meant, they are just giving you a hard time because you posted without reading the article.

Is there another way? ;)