Innocent or not...????

[Whickerman]

In the pub this evening, we were discussing a case of a local guy arrested over 'questionable' content on his pc. One of the lads raised a question that none of us could answer - in fact I'd never even thought of it.

If you get sent an email with an illegal image on it, or more likely, inadvertently click on to a link that opens a page containing some of this sick filth, the image is on your hard-drive forever. In that case, where there's no intention, has a crime been commited? I ask because in the news it only ever refers to the crime of having the images on your computer, not how they get there...

[Bewlay Bros]

I admit there are probably illegal images on my computer Whickster due to inadvertent links etc whilst looking for ADULT images for my art class.

But, in any stated case I have read or learnt about there is usually at least 20 photos.

Further Operation Ore (the worldwide child porn bust) has only focused on credit card purchases.

Any image of a child can be illegal if its purpose is to arouse as such as "pseudo" images is actually included in the legislation.

so in the case of your example, in the strictest sense yes you are in possession of child porn, but in such a circumstance no court in the land will convict nor a policeman arrest for such a breach.

But should this happen, not so much a single picture but a website, jyst ring crimestoppers with the web address to report it.

[Whickerman]

Thanks Wardy - that seems to be the sensible answer, and it's what I'd have thought.

That is, until one of the guys pointed out that under some laws here (admittedly this is peculiar to Irish law) you can be guilty until you prove yourself innocent (2005 H&S act regarding directors where an accident has happened as an example) and the statutory rape law (where there is no defence, even if the girl is willing and 16 years 364 days old.)

I suppose it's a very odd one, as there's no definite way to know what's at the end of a hyperlink.

[weeal]

Hi

I think the crime is when you actively 'download' images, I suppose accidentals dont count in emails and opening one for example from an email would look innocent. Different if you opened around 20 of them I suppose and kept them. Forwarding the email on would be suspect tho!

[Hymie]

About 6 months ago, I noticed the activity LED�s flashing on my broadband cable modem, when I was not accessing the internet. MS Internet Explorer showed nothing unusual, and I had up to date anti-virus & firewall software installed, which reported that full protection was active.

However Gost Surf showed my PC to be sending �packets of data� to a large number of websites. Many appeared reputable companies/organisations, others I did not recognise. Eventually my PC slowed to a crawl whenever I was connected to the internet.
I suspect that my PC had been taken over a part of a Botnet.
Since my anti-virus/firewall could not see anything wrong � what chance had I of spotting a rouge program?

My solution was to shred ALL files on both hard drives, re-format and re-install Windows. This has fixed the problem.
But if my PC was downloading porn � how could I be held responsible?

Anyway that�s my excuse � M�Lord.

[Whickerman]

Hymie - another example. Now try explain that to an 80 year old beak who's only just had electricity installed.

Another way - a lot of people have unprotected wireless networks.

Actually, this is getting a bit scary...

[fredpuli47]

Happily, no explaining of the technology need be made to any 'beak' for them to see there's a defence. They only need understand that somehow or other there's a picture which is 'on the computer' , which somehow or other the defendant could get to see :)

That's because the law in question provides a defence that 1) you have the "picture" ["photograph or pseudo photograph" is the legal expression] in your possession for a legitimate reason
or 2) that you have seen the picture yourself and did not know nor had any cause to suspect it to be indecent
or 3) that the picture was sent to you without any prior request made by you or on your behalf and you did not keep it for an unreasonable time

So you're not guilty, in essence, if you either didn't know it was there or didn't know what it was

The reason why there are prosecutions only when there's quite a lot of pictures is that someone who persistently obtains such a quantity of images is unlikely to be able to run the defence of ignorance ,as above. So it's a question of evidence to meet a possible defence. In theory one image would be enough, if there was enough evidence of knowledge and intention.

[Stu Dent]

The forensic people can analyse the PC and can find that searches have been made looking for the illegal material. That usually blows the 'how did they get there' argument.

But I have the feeling that ten or twenty years from now many cases will emerge where there have been miscarriages of justice for being in possession of these images. The internet is still a pretty new technology and many people are not savvy with protecting themselves against hackers and other nasties like Trojans. They leave themselves open to being victims of criminals who do know what they're doing and use the computers of those who don't to store and distribute illegal material.