Re: orientation lets Roberta's tape
- From: Owen.Strittmatter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:12:46 GMT
They have raided private homes and seized computer equipment after monitoring
Internet traffic and spotting regular people browsing WWW/USENET clicking on
an article they CAN'T SEE UNTIL THEY CLICK ON IT which contained nude pixels
representing children.
Out of fear that child-molesting child pornographers might encrypt these
files, even pro-cryptography legislation has 'using cryptography to commit
a crime gets you an additional five years'.
What happens with a five year prison clause?
Well, let's say the person clicked on what turned out to be child pornography.
So they click on something else and that wipes it off the screen.
It's still sitting in their browser's cache.
* "Man Arrested After Retrieving Child Pornography by Computer"
* The New York Times, May 19, 1995
*
* A Los Angelos man has been arrested on charges of possessing child porno-
* graphy that he obtained over the Internet. His Internet traffic was under
* surveillance because he placed an ad seeking an "open relationship" with
* couples interested in "family nudity."
*
* City Attorney James K. Hahn said "Certainly if you see something flicker
* across your computer monitor, then you are not in possession, but if you
* go to the difficulty of downloading...then you're guilty."
As you can see, this technical detail totally escapes some people.
Continuing: then the Feds raid their place.
Naturally, they charge you with possession of child pornography.
Let's further say you have some gibberish
files which might be encrypted material.
The government then says if you don't plead guilty to child porn, then we'll
prosecute you for the crypto-crime
.
- Prev by Date: Re: trail alters Mohammad Satam Bin Zamid's result
- Next by Date: Re: Heraldry in editorial cartooning
- Previous by thread: Re: trail alters Mohammad Satam Bin Zamid's result
- Next by thread: Re: Heraldry in editorial cartooning
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
