There is Child Porn, Bestiality & Rape on YOUR computer.
 

I've always wondered about this...

you know how you get spam for CP, beasty, rape & other shit like that. Everyone I know who is in the industry gets a shitload of spam like this. Or you know how sometimes sites like that will pop up in the background of normal surfing? Or questionable banners.. whatever.. you get the picture.


Well.... TECHNICALLY, if you can see the offending material, then its sitting there on your hard drive in cache (email, browser). Illegal shit could be sitting there on there on your drives - and you didn't request it or seek it out :(

And thats probably plenty for them to make a case out of anyone they wanted to take down.

Think about that a minute.

Stop using a keyboard, it's not good for you.

all you need is a history kill free trial :glugglug

delet the emails, and internet history and offline files

:glugglug

Yeah I do... but it's just a shame that I have to.

That's what I'm saying.

Get bcwipe

But I'm curious from a legal standpoint (any attorneys) how that would be dealt with. I mean there are millions of people who surf for LEGAL porn and have ILLEGAL shit in their cache because of unwanted HTML spam & popups like that.

I can't help it, pony's are just so adorable :(

I think they can tell the difference between a peadophile and someone who is unlucky enough to be sent those types of emails.

Oh you and I both KNOW they could tell the difference...

But what I'm saying is if they wanted to ruin you, WOULD they.

Townsend for instance.. who knows whats up with him really. BUT since hes in this probe right now.. say hes just a NORMAL surfer of "legal" porn on the net.

If you sign up for the presignups that are common on many paysites (where they first harvest your email address before you really pay) or you signup for those "for free" sites, then your email address is going to get whored out to anyone who will pay the seller a shiny penny for it.

Eventually you'll be getting tons of spam that contains illegal images... and someone in Townsends position could be screwed additionally over something like that... when he may not have searched that type of content out (as an example..not sticking up for that guy or anything).

very true.

and for aurgements sake... lets say you could be any vegatable you wanted. What would you be? I'd be a carrot.

I think I'd be a head of lettuce.

are you going to spam us with internet eraser now?

He could be right, if they decided for some reason to go after you, and you hadn't cleaned the files out right before they showed up. I know I've gotten into cj popup chains before that have had beast and other questionable/illegal shit. I'll bet gallery and avs site reviewers get it all the time.

No. I would rather curse & delete the folders manually when I see the offending material

but untill overwrite the deleted files with other stuff I think it can still be extracted and also I think files can be hidden in different places on your machine that you wont check. Like for instance there is a cache for netscape in the program folders and not in the Temporary Internet Files.

The following is a footnote in a very recent case (which sheds some light on the initial question raised by this post )
U.S. v. Perez, 247 F. Supp. 2d 459 (U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D.N.Y. 2003) , in which the court held that FBI agents had acted with ?reckless disregard for the truth? in preparing warrant affidavits that were used nationwide in a massive Government operation labeled ?Operation Candyman,? to prosecute people who allegedly obtained child pornography over the Internet. In rulings that could imperil scores of related prosecutions around the country, both judges granted motions to suppress the challenged evidence.

Specifically discussing internet browsing, and "possession" of cache files, the court stated in footnote No.12 as follows:

Whether the statute reaches mere internet "browsing" issomething of an open question. Here, it is a central contention inthe warrant affidavit that members of the group automaticallyreceived group e-mails with illegal files attached, activity thatwould most likely violate the statute. Without the receipt andpossession of those e-mailed files, probable cause to believeevidence of criminal activity would be found on a suspect's computeris that much more uncertain. The statute does not criminalize"viewing" the images, and there remains the issue of whether imagesviewed on the internet and automatically stored in a browser'stemporary file cache are knowingly "possessed" or "received." Thequestion, as the court in United States v. Zimmerman, 277 F.3d 426,435 (3d Cir. 2002), put it while examining probable cause, is thatwithout evidence that pornography was specifically downloaded andsaved to a defendant's computer, the offending images "may well havebeen located in cyberspace, not in [the defendant's] home." InUnited States v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193, 1205 (10th Cir. 2002), thecourt upheld a conviction for possession of files automaticallystored in a browser cache because the defendant's "habit of manuallydeleting images from the cache files established that he exercisedcontrol over them." Id. at 1198. The court clarified, however, thatit offered "no opinion on whether the mere viewing of childpornography on the Internet, absent caching or otherwise saving theimage, would meet the statutory definition of possession" nor whether"an individual could be found guilty of knowingly possessing childpornography if he viewed such images over the Internet but wasignorant of the fact that his Web browser cached such images." Id.;see United States v. Stulock, 308 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir. 2002)(noting that the district court (Judge Perry) acquitted the defendanton one count and "explained that one cannot be guilty of possessionfor simply having viewed an image on a web site, thereby causing theimage to be automatically stored in the browser's cache, withouthaving purposely saved or downloaded the image").

agreed