E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSViewing child pornography online isn't a crime, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in the case of a college professor whose work computer was found to have stored more than a hundred illegal images in its Web cache.
 M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. |
The court dismissed one of the two counts of promoting a sexual performance of a child and one of the dozens of counts of possession of child pornography on which James D. Kent was convicted. The court upheld the other counts against Kent, an assistant professor of public administration at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Kent — who said at his sentencing that he "abhorred" child pornography and argued that someone else at Marist must have placed the images on his computer — was sentenced to one to three years in state prison in August 2009.
Watch US News videos on msnbc.com
The decision rests on whether accessing and viewing something on the Internet is the same as possessing it, and whether possessing it means you had to procure it. In essence, the court said no to the first question and yes to the second.
"Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote for a majority of four of the six judges.
"Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that were on his screen," Ciparick wrote. "To hold otherwise, would extend the reach of (state law) to conduct — viewing — that our Legislature has not deemed criminal."
Read the full appeals court ruling (.pdf)
In other words, "the purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Judge Victoria A. Graffeo wrote in one of two concurring opinions that agreed with the result but not with the majority's reasoning.
Kent's attorney, Nathan Z. Dershowitz, told msnbc.com that he hadn't yet had a chance to talk to his client, so he couldn't discuss what they would do next. But he agreed with Graffeo that the ruling means that "in New York, there is no crime" in simply viewing child pornography.
All of the judges agreed that child pornography is an abomination, but they disagreed whether it was necessary to "criminalize all use of child pornography to the maximum extent possible," as Ciparick wrote in the majority opinion. The majority said that was up to the Legislature, not the courts, to decide.
Judge throws out child porn charge against Washington man
The technical details revolve around copies of deleted files that remained in the cache of Kent's Web browser, which were the basis of the two counts that were dismissed. They were discovered, along with other materials, during a virus scan that Kent had requested because his computer was running slowly.
To demonstrate possession of the images in the cache, "the defendant's conduct must exceed mere viewing," Ciparick wrote, adding that "the mere existence of an image automatically stored in a cache" isn't enough.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that Kent even knew his Web browser had a cache in the first place, writing, "A defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists."
Dershowitz said the "real problem here is that legislation is not keeping up with technology," arguing that federal courts also haven't fully addressed the legal standing of images stored only in a browser cache.
The federal statute outlawing possession of child pornography — 18 USC 2252A — doesn't mention browser caches. The few cases that have examined the issue at the federal level — notably a 2002 federal appeals case involving a Utah man and a 2006 federal appeals case involving a visitor to Las Vegas — generally conclude that cached images alone can establish possession if the defendant knows about the browser's caching function.
Both courts noted that it was hypothetically possible for the defendants to be innocent if they were ignorant of the cache function.
"Those statutes are probably not quite as incomprehensible, but they are anything but clear," Dershowitz said.
Kent's convictions on the other counts rested on other evidence, including a folder on his machine that stored about 13,000 saved images of girls whom investigators estimated to be 8 or 9 years old and four messages to an unidentified third party discussing a research project into the regulation of child pornography.
"I don't even think I can mail the disk to you, or anyone else, without committing a separate crime. So I'll probably just go ahead and wipe them," one of the messages said.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
With all the crazies out there this is all we need.This is not a good thing..
It is a good thing. It applies to some very fringe cases. Here's an example: You're browsing around and stumble upon some child porn. Horrified, you immediately call the authorities. Under current law, you are in possession of child porn by even stumbling upon it. When you look at an image online, a version is cached in your browser's history. An overzealous DA, perhaps embarrassed by the incident, could try and pin a child porn charge on you. The picture is there, but there is no criminal intent. Even if the charges don't stick, you can bet you'd get press coverage and it would practically ruin your marriage, career, and life.
This finding says that merely looking at an image and having it in your browser's cache is not sufficient enough to be in possession. You can be protected from that overzealous DA and protected for your good deed.
There is always enforcement issues with certain laws. In my state, by law, your guns should be locked up in a basic safe when no one is home. However many of the stolen guns are left out in the open. If we punished the owners who ignored the law it would more likely cause people to not report a stolen firearm to prevent legal repercussions on themselves, and then hurt law enforcement in not getting a accurate count of what and how many guns could be on the black market.
With the very serious nature of child pornography and harm to your reputation, even if you are innocent, I often fear the possibilities of hackers trying to frame you, or someone trying to set you up.
In my town a man's wife who was going through a divorce claimed that she found child pornography on his laptop (that was in her possession for a few days) and her friend/ possible lover had access to it and was a computer wiz. Sounded extremely fishy, and I think charges were dropped, but he had to move because of the damage done to his reputation.
Also for people below: New York State is not a dictatorship, I've lived there for years. If people want laws changed, they'll get them changed. Part of the state law system allows for states to to choose for themselves their own interpretations of federal laws. If you really hate gun control laws, lax or rigid abortion access or medical marijuana, you are free to move to another state if you are unable to change said laws.
Do you ever go to the public library and go to the computer section? All the perverts watching porn on the machines, it's sickening.
The dizzy state legislatures need to get off their dead-lazy seees and write laws that take into consideration current technology. To make them do their jobs in a timely manner all that needs to be done is to have a sunset provision, say every two years, that will force them to read up on new technology. Being 20 years behind the times cause they are too busy writing crap laws for their special interest groups should not be tolerated
Good ruling. He did not pay for it, spread it, upload it, and may not even have downloaded it. None of us really knows what is in our cached files.
I guess they are looking to release all the porn pedophiles from their prisons so they can save money for the state.
Watching child porn over the net imo is encouraging it, and who are the people having these kids perform these sex acts. That alone is illegal and it should never be available to anyone over the net, in magazines or on video/dvd.
This is just wrong, and now I question whether or not if the judge that made this decision if he/she is involved in the child porn ring.
This judge needs to be removed, and now.
the legislators in this country seem more concerned with gun rights, illegal immigrants, and stopping gay marriage than geting off their duffs and figuring out technology and updating the laws for current technology where real people are getting harmed. plus if they let the courts make decisions like this for them then they have campaign issues like "them activist judges let that guy go..."
Pragmatic - you can rationalize this ruling all you want. If you knowingly even look at child porn after you have "stumbled" upon it, you are twisted and need to be locked up. Doesn't matter if you're "in possession" or not. That is all.
Steve, what you just said makes no sense. You aren't "twisted" based on stumbling upon something accidentally. That's completely illogical.
Arieus, it will be a dangerous day indeed when we start dismissing judges for enforcing the law as it is written. Your accusation is baseless and rather classless as well. A judge's job is to properly apply the law, not manipulate the law to mean something more than it says.
Steve - how do you know it is child porn if you don't look at it?
Good ruling.
On the other hand, if you don't mind watching child porn on TV instead, it's legal in every state. Just tune in to Toddlers & Tiaras.
You are correct, sir.
I agree with Pragmatic. Most people would be surprised at some of the things in their internet cache. The fact that an image is on your cache does not even mean you have seen it. It could have been further down a page you viewed where you did not scroll all the way down before leaving the page. Also, some web accelerators will start downloading pages that are linked to on your current page in the background to speed viewing if you click on one of the links. You may have never have actually opened the page the illegal material appeared on. I do not buy the rationale that this guy did not know about their web browser's caching function. Anyone with a computer understands that web browsers cache a copy of what you view. I think the issue of things like web accelerators provide a much clearer rationale for this ruling. I disagree with Pragmatic on one point in that I think that if you are knowingly going to a page that is clearly about child porn to view the images you should be prosecuted. If you stumble on it, it is one thing, but this guy obviously did not stumble onto one page when he had thousands of images saved on his computer. If you had stumbled onto it by accident this would be pretty apparent from the few images that would be found and only found in the cache.
To me there is almost nothing more disgusting and horrifying than child pornography and child abuse in general. I've never stumbled upon child porn but I'm sure it can happen and it is absurd to make such an incident a criminal act. Intent is key and is the only question when it comes to crimes like viewing child porn.
I just can't believe with all the technology available today that if we shifted some of our efforts from banning contraception to protecting our children that we couldn't identify and stamp out most of Internet child porn. Google has very sophisticated algorithms that could find and alert police to this kind of filth... but we don't because when it comes down to it very few people really care. They certainly don't care enough to spend money to stop it.
It's no different then accidentally seeing a naked fat chick. You can't unsee what you've seen even if you burn out your eyes with acid. Can the government kill you or charge you just because you happened to see a top secret weapon?
Seeing something you didn't seek out to see is no crime. Clicking on a web link is no different then changing the channel on your TV. You had nothing to do with the content on a particular channel or website. Even if your DVR is set to record anything that is shown on a channel, it's no crime to possess the recording. It should apply the same with a computer. If you click on a web page and decide to keep what is shown on the screen, you haven't committed a crime. The only person that has committed a crime if something is presented to you on a screen, is the TV station or website owner. That's why the TV show was fined for showing Janet Jackson's breast during that Super Bowl half time show. Had she had been an under age girl, would they try to charge 40 million viewers for watching child porn?
Sally in Chicago
re: post 1.3
Somehow I think you'd be OK with their viewing choices if it were murder and mayhem, the staples of American TV. I never have been able to quite understand why any fully grown adult would find a problem with someone else who is watching 2 others on-screen, or on TV for that matter, doing the old in n out.Just keep walking! Its none of your business unless they invite you to watch or participate. There is a saying about nudity- it may be often seen but never noticed. So don't notice! You can't possibly find that guy in the library any more disgusting than I would if I went thru that same place and saw you listening to Al Sharpton or any of 2 dozen televangelists.
This is sick in any direction you try to view this decision.
Steve,
re: post 1.8
Ummm, how would someone even know that they had child porn in their cache unless they looked at it first? ESP? Maybe you can explain to us how it is done. And none of that "You shouldn't be looking at porn anyway" crap!
It's a rational decision in light of current technology. Back when most of these child porn laws were written, the illegal images were contained in underground magazines and/or VHS tapes. The kinds of things that you have to actually go and make an active effort to acquire: hard for a person nabbed with such materials to claim ignorance when they were found in some hidden stash in their bedroom or basement, and corroboration of knowing possession could be ascertained by their fingerprints (and even semen or such) all over the forbidden materials.
With images automatically stored on a computer's cache, those assumptions and means of ascertaining intent to possess and view go out the window. As many already pointed, few people have a clue what gets automatically stored in their computer's cache. And aside from the scenario of accidentally stumbling on a kiddie porn site, a lot of web pages go ahead and take the liberty of storing in your cache not only materials from that page, but even materials from other pages that are linked to that page, whether you click on those links or not.
So yeah, it's a good decision that takes into account changes in technology.
This is a good decision if you like seeing pedophiles hatchet their children to death when God sends parents to hell who demonstrate felony behaviors which will undermine their children's ability to perceive right from wrong.
The hatchets will fly, just like they did in Washington State.
Pedophilia is wrong, it doesn't matter what government promotes it. Viewing it is downloading as a temporary file is created on your computer.
I'm under the assumption a lot of you have kids, or have young family members, correct? Well... how many of them use a computer. A lot right? Well, there's a pretty big chance they go to imageboards. Places that allow people to post whatever images they want without needing validation from a mod.
Were this to actually allow you to be locked up for your internet cache, I'm sure thousands of you would have friends and family locked up for half the crap posted on the internet. Why? Because the internet cache saves whatever you look at automatically, so your computer doesn't have to redownload it to view the webpage again.
Really and truly though... this wouldn't be a victory at all even with a reverse ruling. They busted some guy that was too busy behind the keyboard to go after the real thing. They didn't actually bust the freaks that actually produce it, and those are the real monsters abusing kids, not creepy Mr. Kent.
I don't understand why we prosecute the possession of child porn so severely - with years in prison. These people did not hurt the child, and have no connection to the person that did. Think about what it would be like if you bought some stolen goods from someone's trunk, and then were charged with "promoting armed robbery" and sent to prison for 20 years. Oh yeah, and the guys that went in guns blazing to actually perform the robbery? 25 years.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be a crime, but throwing someone in jail for 5 or more years is excessive, oppressive, and doesn't really get to the heart of the problem.
ThaMonkeh ~ Your right... however, we can clean our computers cache by removing the temporary internet files, under control panel, internet options...
Your right again, about Mr. Kent, he's one that you just keep the kids away from... or have a constant visual! But better just to keep them away from him...
There is nothing wrong with this ruling at all. It is trivial for a website to have an imbedded app that goes to websites without your even knowing it because every visit to a website generates money. The writer of that app may not even know what websites are visited because they are all pulled automatically from a list. It is not a simple matter of "Don't go to that part of the web.". Its everywhere.
And this should be a reminder....ALWAYS DELETE YOUR CACHE PEOPLE!!
so your defense is,
what if someone is looking at porn and a suprise 5 year old is getting it from an adult?
really?
thats a pretty lame defense.
chances are, if there is that one then there are a million others on there.
this is a very grey area and it now ties the hands of the cops. now all someone has to say is "it wasnt me"?
HMMMMMMMM...
so the republicans are at war with women, how are liberials not at war with children with this coming from ultra liberial New York?
this is bad on so many levels.
Overlord, I certainly agree with your first paragraph....however, you get derailed in the second paragraph...pls provide examples of anyone who is trying to ban contraception. Asking people to take responsibility for buying contraception on their own does not equate to trying to ban it! Please stop regurgitating these "talking points" as they are based on nothing except a certain party's attempt to scare the public into voting for them.
Believe it or not, this seems to be the correct decision. There are certainly times when images that we didn't intend to bring up on our monitors pop up. What then? Arrest the viewer? So, viewing this content is correctly declared to not be a crime.
However, download any of it to your hard drive and you are then guilty of possession which is a crime. Seems reasonable.
The good thing, if there is a good thing, that came from this ruling is all of the pedophiles will now be concentrated in one state. Thank you New York!
It isn't just a state problem. Most members of Congress have no grasp of technology. That's why they're always trying to pass laws like SOPA and CISPA. If they understood how the Internet works, they would't vote for laws that diminish our privacy and claim that its a good thing.
I agree that this was a ruling that had to be made. Sucks, but it had to be made.
That being said, stumbling on to a CP site 13,000 times seems a little clumsy. The guy's going down for this whole thing, it's just a couple of counts that are being dropped.
OMG powerice are you a complete and incompetent moron?! This guy DID have have other child porn on his computer that he DID download and keep. This was about other child porn that was in his cache. Lord you "oh no we have to err on the side of them not knowing it was there" freaks need to read the WHOLE article before touting how wonderful this HORRIFIC decision is! He WAS still found guilty of having child porn on his computer, other childporn so yeah, he did have this crap on his cache on purpose. There's no way in hell that he had child porn on his computer and that what was on his cache was accidental. Get a fricken clue.... if we don't protect our children and keep these monsters off the street then we're as dispicable as they are!
tz, good point. But the ruling in of itself is a good one, so as the innocent stumblers don't get unjustly accussed. As for this perp, yes he is a monster, but as to your comment about protecting children, I think I'm doing a great job with my own, but I can't protect everyone elses children out there, I hope that dosen't make me just like them.
One of the viruses I got on my old computer would actually bring up porn. It would keep linking to the internet and go to to a porn site. It was pretty strange but then it also went to the site saying "buy our (fake) anti-virus program." It wasn't child porn, thank goodness, but I can understand how an accidental viewing could happen.
I agree with the ruling. However, since the ruling opens the door to people being ok to view child porn on the internet, the government will need to figure out how to regulate this issue while still being fair to people who may have had a virus or have stumbled on child porn.
Keep thinking that next time you get a virus that redirects your browser to a kiddie porn site and you get accused of child porn.
First of all I agree that child porn is abhorent and should not be tolerated. I also recognize that the fight against it has to start somewhere. Having said that, however, it is important that we recognize that the only place that we can truly regulate its distribution is within our own borders. We cannot regulate or mandate how other nations manage their internal infrastructure which would include their world wide web access. As a result it is indeed possible to gain access to it by vectoring through a host computer in an unrestricted country. The point is that when we made the world wide web and the internet experience available to the citizens of our nation we had to accept the possibility that it could and would be used for nefarious activities that we may not approve of.
As with anything involving human interaction there exists the likelihood that someone will figure out a way to profit from it legally or illegally. As we are learning, the illegal aspects are often very creative and difficult to trace and pinpoint. It is crime by proxy in a way since the perpetrator doesn't even have to leave his/her house to conduct their activities. Child porn is just one aspect as we are discovering and the authorities are having to run furiously to catch up with this technology.
Simply viewing an existing product that happens to be deemed illegal is argueably morally wrong but it should not be a punishable offense since it does not constitute possession or any attempt at distribution. That is rather akin to charging a person who inadvertently finds a corpse in the woods with complicity to murder just for finding it and reporting it. The crime was at the hands of someone else and the finder played no part in it having only encountered the aftermath.
It seems that with every social advance that we encounter our lives are made more complicated. As a result we are running across more and more 'catch 22' type situations where no matter what you do someone suffers for whatever decision is made or whatever approach is taken. We now have so many laws and regulations that at some point in their lives every man or woman will be a criminal eventually. LOL All you have to do to become a criminal is exceed the speed limit, J walk, take a piss in the woods, drop a gum wrapper on the sidewalk, take a short cut across your neighbor's property, and thousands of other misdemeanor offenses that most of us do or have done at any given time in our lives.
Now it is even possibe to be labeled a criminal for some offense that you didn't even know that you committed just because you happen to own a computer. Sorry, but to me that is just inexcuseable and should not be permitted. You must be proven culpable before you are declared an offender. However, I don't create the laws so we are kind of at the mercy of what ever legal wind happens to be blowing at any given moment. LOL
well hell...y not have child porn legalized? we got a president thats down with legalized fagg0ty marriages...theres tons of fagg0ty gay porn on the net...and ALL KINDS of sick animal porn on the scene...and EVERYTHING ELSE thats vile and disgusting...TONS and TONS of sick minded sh!t thats free 2 b viewed...child porn aint gonna make it any worse
WATCHITSUCKA1- FVCK U. I hate haters like you. go back to Nazi germany where you belong with all the other people like you. I suppose you wanna burn all the Jews aswell? Wanker.
I did not see that coming.
Pragmatic - you make a very compelling argument.
Let us use the use the FBI warning recently - advising the public to have their computers scanned for a potential virus/malware.
This example shows that computers can be vulnerable if they are infected. More so, if your computer is infected by a "browser hijacker" that redirects your browser to questionable sites.
The point? The ruling is sound - acknowledging the reality that when you are on the internet - you can stumble on the grotesque without your intent to do so.
The downside to this? Pedophiles can become sophisticated enough to avoid detection by exploiting this interpretation of the law.
The question? How are we going to respond? Clarify the law to avoid prosecuting someone who stumbles on the grotesque, possibly allowing pedophiles to avoid prosecution? Or do nothing and allow the possibility of prosecuting one who stumbles on the grotesque?
Where do we draw the boundary? Either way we go - we are bound to have victims -
There should not even be a such thing as "child porn". What sick fu*ks people are that make or watch child porn.
sick fu*ks, that is why they call them that. Feed them to the gators, no love lost here.
There are people who only commit murder for hire.
There are people who wants to kill the victim for free because he drew a picture of Allah.
There are people who wants to kill the victim for free because he had a picture of Allah.
There are people who wants to kill others because their government told them it's OK to do it.
There are rapists who rape because they find the act enjoyable.
There are people who wants to kill the rapist because the crime is horrendous.
There are people who wants to kill others in possesion of rape pictures
A popular saying: a picture is worth a thousand word. But today, the government has made the possesson of a certain type of picture worthy of a thousand years in jail.
I feel I am quite liberal and I think this is ridiculous. How in the world are people up in arms about gay marriage, abortion and yet child pornography is legal. Makes no sense. Nothing really does lately.
A poster stated, did you guys actually read the article? The perp in this case is being prosecuted, but some of the charges drop because of technicality, which is a good thing if you roam the net a lot and accidentally come across child porn. Should everyone that kiss a child on the lips be prosecuted as child molesters?
Most are 42 year old idiots who deserve the death penalty just for thinking the things they think. About 12% would be kids under 18 looking for a quick way to make a girlfriend. I'm ashamed to be a citizen of New York now...I'm thinking about moving to japan now......Goodbye everyone
Dear 'thepunisher',
Did you read the article? I hardly think 100 images in a cache is "accidental". I roam the net a lot and have yet to come across child porn. Strange, isn't it?
got news for folks...you DONT just stumble on child porn. you have to go looking for it on hardcore porn sites or file sharing sites and click on a number of links to get to it usually. pedophiles out there just got a green light on this stuff...very nice work NYSJC.
I'm sure everyone out there who thinks this is a good idea doesn't have a child who was sexually abused and then those photos posted online and then what those images are used for. consider that for a moment! go ahead and ask any sex crimes unit in a prosecutor's office what they think of this.
Another reason I am glad I do not live in NY, pretty liberal view. Looking into what is with my state for sure. Not sure how I would react if I even saw someone doing this. I do know if I were to witness child abuse I would be arrested and go to court for at least assault.
geez - give libs a break (you don't even know if the judges are libs or not).
Not only that, they haven't decided that looking at child porn is good. What they've decided is that the law hasn't changed to cover this one loophole.
Instead of whining about libs, scream about the law being wrong and get the law fixed.
The solution is simple and it's got nothing to do with libs vs. conservatives. It's merely a law that needs fixed.
And no, I'm not into child porn - I'm into blaming the real cause of problems and not blaming someone for following the specifics of the law.
Bob, a "pretty liberal view"? I guess the actions of all child predators, including priests, are considered liberal? Well done...
Well MS12, since you liberals are the crowd of "anything goes"...you can wear this one to.
it is not so much the liberal view, it is laws do not keep up with the technology. I am a liberal, but I find child porn abhorant.
That's totally asinine.
Liberals are the party of anything goes? You mean like New York Conservative Republican Carl Paladino who got caught sending beastiality porn to his buddies?
Oh man. I hope you're browsing an anonymous message board one day when some @!$%# decides to start posting child porn. You're sickened and horrified, and immediately report it to the mods. Well, turns out that you were using a public computer and somebody saw it while they were walking behind you. They turn you in, the police scour the computer, and they find the cache files that were kept by the internet browser. If the judges here had ruled the other way, YOU could be convicted for possession of child pornography.
If you had read the entire story instead of just the headline, in your effort to lambaste us "heathen liberals," you would see how this works out.
By the way, I've seen so called "conservative" people around here locked up for child porn. Shove your political labels up your ass, brah.
FormerMarineSgt makes a good point. Don't blame the judges, fix the laws. How many people on here who condemn this verdict also complain about "activist" judges who don't follow the literal letter of the law. A great many, I bet. You can't have it both ways.
That reminds me what ever happened to those videos? They hit the Internet but suddenly vanished. Anyone know why?
i honestly i think child porn is down right sick and worry andto be honest with u all
i think that no mater what a porson that likes child porn should be shoot or hanged
for even having child porn.
The headline is sensationalistic; the facts suggest that the justices made the right call. I don't know if anyone else has had the computer go nuts and start adding all sorts of stuff that you didn't ask for and you had to shut the computer down and scrub it (there's probably a better way to describe this but I'm not a computer guy), but that sounds like what happened here.
if anyone else has had the computer go nuts and start adding all sorts of stuff that you didn't ask for and you had to shut the computer down
Was with you to a point then remembered the article clearly states:
Creating the folder and sending the email shows he KNEW what was on the computer AND that what he had his hands on IS a crime. No to this being an oops. He got off LIGHT with 1-3 years. Even if he got a DAY for each image he should be doing 35 years.
Disgusting. How do you even stumble on child porn, you have to be somewhere pretty twisted to do so. If you download it, email it you should get thrown in prison.
To the nimrod that said looking at it isn't that bad, people who are perverts rarely stop at looking. That's why we have rapists and kidnappers.
@Men, meh "peverts rarely stop at looking" Actually that is not true. No one elevates beyond their original M.O. Pornography doesn't create rapists and kidnappers, they may begin their career after being triggered but a person that isn't ever going to rape won't start raping because they saw a certain rape site. That topic has been researched in depth. A person is pre-wired with limitations on what they're capable of doing.
I could watch a thousand rape flicks and not rape anyone. While a born rapist could watch a cartoon and be triggered to rape.
Seems rather silly for the prosecutors to even worry about the images in a browser cache, when they also found 13,000 images that pervo mctwisted definitely stored in a folder, plus email messages he wrote about sharing porn that he knew was illegal. It is unlikely that a few extra images in a cache would change the sentence, even if the accused admits that he knew about it.
From reading the postings in this message change, it is clear that many people don't understand that a browser cache IS a folder. Trust_verify ... re-read the quote that you published. It said that there was a folder on his machine that contained the images ... it didn't say that he created the folder or that he had placed the images there. If that folder didn't exist when he bought his computer, it was created automatically the first time that he visited ANY web site.
READ the WHOLE article Barry this guy WAS convicted of having porn on his computer, so he DID purposely look at child porn. Lord I can't stand when people don't read the ENTIRE article before spouting their completely ignorant and uninformed opinions.
Barry-NJ
The FOLDER in question was CREATED to store those 13000 images SPECIFICALLY. It was NOT created as part of the cache. READ the article and notice he exchanged an email discussing specifically the images in that folder. A cache FILE contains more than images and is generally not referred to as a FOLDER but rather a cache FILE. Amazingly that technical description is so mundane that it is barely touched on in computers 101 as a reading assignment. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_cache#Browser_cache
It doesn't matter how it is referred to ... a cache IS a folder or, more typically, folders. Go take a look at your own machine.
Of course he was convicted. That's the whole reason there was an appeal. In fact, the whole point of the appeal is that having child porn on a computer doesn't mean that it is there (or viewed) purposely. You're trying to use his conviction as proof of his guilt.
Sadly the sheeple here in SIN-erica, formerly America, just keep bleating merrily along, behind the leaders. They NEVER see the blade coming, until they are in the pen and it is dropped upon their necks. I weep for this ignorant, filthy, wicked nation of sheeple.
I can't wait until the oh-so-clever users of the word "sheeple" latch on to some newer, more lame buzzword.
And SIN-merica???? Really??? Is that the best you could come up with?
pink floyd"animals"-
Sounds like a set up.?..
I understand that people can stumble onto a child porn site or image but this guy stumbled onto these sites a lot. It's like slipping and falling and a straw goes up your nose and as you inhale, a line of coke gets snorted. This guy will probably get to keep his job. I cant believe they said he could be innocent because he didn't know about the cache function. Really? It's pure idiocy. Clearly these are Harvard law trained judges.
branxoz, America has a problem with decadence. We do sin by having out of wedlock sex and homosexuality and drug use but at least we can deal with it without chopping people up with a machete or bury them alive or throw rocks at them until they're dead or burn their faces with acid like the Islamic countries. True savages..
Did you travel through time from the 16th century? I mean really, out of wedlock sex? Really, are you kidding me? This is 2012, not 1512! Smoking a joint is decadence? That's almost funny! Get a grip man...
TheOverlord, it could be that moneyos1 decided to step out of the FIRST century! Do you think our country was the first to be tolerant of gross sexual perversion and immortality? You can look to the Roman Empire to draw comparison in history. Society rejected such perversion realizing the harmful effects. I only hope that citizens of the US will do the same. My fear is that will not happen until we have suffered some harm.
What puts you above the rest? I laugh at those with such a superior attitude. It only means you can't see your own shortcomings.
money0s1 - Of course he will NOT keep his job. He was convicted and is going to prison based on good evidence (13,000 purposefully stored images and some emails.) The extra images stored in browser cache were just a little icing on the cake - I don't know why they even added that charge - maybe to test the State Appeals Court?
When one count out of dozens is dropped, he is still a convicted sex criminal. Since he was using his "work computer" (assuming it belongs to the employer), there are multiple reasons to terminate for cause. He is a convicted felon, he misused university property and network and time, he demonstrated unacceptable moral character, etc. Grounds galore - he may be able to keep some pension rights if vested, and maybe collect on unused vacation time if the employer is generous.
Mailman .. where did the article say that the images were purposefully stored?
Barry-NJ
Kent's convictions on the other counts rested on other evidence, including a folder on his machine that stored about 13,000 saved images of girls whom investigators estimated to be 8 or 9 years old and four messages to an unidentified third party discussing a research project into the regulation of child pornography.\
does that help? STORED saved.. intent to keep. vs
The technical details revolve around copies of deleted files that remained in the cache of Kent's Web browser,
note it says DELETED as intent to dispose of.
We live in a society that has thrown out the book on normal sexual behavior and has grasp onto the sick and perverse. I saw this coming years ago. The psychiatrist state that this is just another sexual preference.
There is a couple of towns in the Old Testament that did that. But that is all fiction right? Sure it is.
Philip - when a law doesn't cover something, it's a called a loophole.
Fix the loophole and then no one can get away with this disgusting type of nastiness and the bad guys can be convicted properly.
It's alot more accurate than blaming everyone else for this country's problems.
OMG, FormerMarine, I so agree with you! I am so sick of the whinning, name-calling, and finger pointing. How about writing your representatives and fixing the problem.
You are so correct. This is a loophole that will be exploited by these sick and twist pervs. Do something about it, New York! Close that loophole!
People are already doing these sexual practices and society denies it. All that has happened is our society has recognized that certain sex practices actually do exist. It's called evolving.
Do something about it, New York! Close that loophole!
Careful .. when you ask a legislature to "do something" about something, they often make it worse because they act first, without thinking. Legislators almost forget about that ever-present law .. the law of unintended consequences.
The court should always find on the side of children and protect them from harm. By ruling that viewing child porn online is legal is a violation of the laws against child pornography&pedophilia. Child porn is a crime, therefore viewing it should always be a crime. Someone who claims they accidentally came upon it online would need to prove it,if they can't prove it then they must be guilty of accessing&downloading it onto their system. If it was only in their cache and was a one time thing that could prove they came upon it by accident, but it should be reported immediately so the site is taken down and the pedophiles or posted it&operate the site are charged.
If the law doesn't cover something, they can't arrest you on the basis of that particular law.
Fix the law and this won't happen. It really is that simple.
Exactly who this finding protects. You can be charged for being in possession of child porn by randomly stumbling upon it. Even if you call the police the minute you find it, you can still be charged. And even if you aren't convicted of any crime, the media coverage alone is enough to destroy you as a person.
Patty Garza
The court should always find
on the side of childrenJustice and protectthemit fromharmbeing sold.Fixed that for you.
While I do not in any way condone child porn or any harm to a child we can't persecute someone simply because we don't like them. Fix the laws.
While no one disagrees with you on the disgusting nature of the situation there is a potential for abuse so if the laws are updated I hope it also protects the innocent.
I had a few pictures of naked women on my work computer once (not child porn) the IT guy said quite a number of people in the company (men and women) had the same pictures downloaded as well. It can happen without you even knowing it.
So if child porn was broadcasted on your TV and you watched it and kept the recording on your VCR/DVR, you should be charged with a crime even if you had nothing to do with it being shown on your TV? How's that any different then someone clicking on a web link? You had nothing to do with what a website sends to your computer. And how do you prove intent? The onus would have to be on the government for allowing it to be stored on the Internet and sent to someone's computer.
Isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution anymore?
Sick, sick sick, sick!!!
Tough to play devil's advocate here, but simply looking at something shouldn't be a crime. If one drives down certain streets in certain cities, one can view prostitutes - some probably underage - working the corners. Looking is not the same as making a purchase (or rental, in this case) ! ;)
It is the closest thing in America we have to a thought crime. Even looking at illustrations depicting child porn is considered just as bad as photographs.
Yeah, perhaps you think for a second about the children forced into making the porn. Spare some thought for them instead of the people that look at it. That professor, by keeping 13,000 images of 8 and 9 year old girls engaged in porn, how about we call it what it is, rape, should be thrown away. You don't accidently "stumble" on that many images, nor, do you save them, if you aren't a disgusting low life.
Men,meh. clearly you are not a technically adept person who understands just how the internet and the world wide web works just as I am not either. It was a bit of an eye opener for me when I had my teen's computer cleaned professionally and they found bank records of someone we don't even know in another state on it. I asked how on earth that could happen. The tech explained that aparently someone was the victim of identity theft and my kid's computer just happened to be the thief's goat for their illegal money transactions from that person's account. That way if it is traced my kid would become a suspect in the theft and not the criminal who actually did the theft.
He explained to me that this is not at all uncommon. Thieves from Eastern Europe thrive on the internet and the people who use it for their criminal activities. Your computer as well as mine may be making illegal transactions as we chat here on the vine and we are totally unaware of it because it is running in the background and there is no indication of it on our screens. Ask a professional sometime. It is worth the effort and they can give you tips to help protect yourself. One biggie they gave me was to never leave your computer powered up when not using it.
what a ton of bull@!$%# so you cant smoke pot but it ok to look at child porn in new york
the law is merely broken. IT takes very little to get it fixed.
The NY state legislature could do that in about an hour now that they know this loophole exists.
Scream at your NY legislators and it will get fixed quickly.
New York is becoming a sewer every day. Full of waste and debris. Only Gods knows whats coming next.
the internet is the devil. years ago i was on a guitar forum and a guy posted a link on how to play a song.when i clicked the link a window popped up screaming "i love gay porn!" and there was a picture of two guys engaged in oral sex on the screen. then a bunch of windows opened until my computer crashed. this was at my grandparents house. as you can imagine this was very embarrassing. i was tricked. thank god gay porn isn't illegal or i would be in jail
Don't worry, they can tell the difference ;)
hump
This happened to me also. I called Apple and they got it gone. probably the same one. They kept coming in, page after page. So sickening.
The same arguments that go with homosexuality will now be used for the acceptance of pedohilia. They were born that way, we to have compassion, it is not abnormal behavior, they have no choice in the matter. The same lies that GLSEN has used B4UACT will follow. If you do not agree with the homosexual agenda they apply their bigoted agenda. No sodomite will see the kingdom of God. Homophobe and proud of it. Pedophobe and proud of it.
Serial killers are sometimes "born that way,too." But do we let them off because they're sick? Of course not.
Some people may well indeed be born with an affinity to children (maybe), that doesn't change the fact it is against the law to harm a child; and forcing a child or engaging with a child in any sexual act is a crime. Always has been --- always will be.
Protect your children at all costs.
Didin't take long to bring in the gays. Sex or marriage between adults and children or humans and animals will never be lawful. That is because animals and children are incapable of consenting to sex, while two adults are.
And why bother brining up God? I am not religious and neither are some homosexuals. Why do we have to adhere to your bible when we do not believe in it?
Also please tell me that sodomites include men who want to stick in their girlfriends butts, because as a straight female that's a huge turn off to me. Maybe I'll pretend to be religious for that one singular reason!
the arguments that go with believing in god will now be used to accept believing in witches.if you believe in god you must believe in witches.witches were hanged about 400 years ago when civilization was a lot more intelligent.god is gay. didn't you get the memo you tool? gays have nothing to do with pedophiles. just because males priests rape altar boys doesn't make them gay.it makes them a pedophile and a rapist. they don't care if it is a boy or a girl just that they are young. your god created these people so your god is messed up. why would you believe in a god who creates people that screw kids you sicko?!
define ADULT. As recently as the early 1900's couples as young as 12 were married and having children. In some states it is still legal to marry at that age with parental consent.
babbler, pedophobe means fear of children. Are you proud to fear children???? Inbred redneck cretin
Every time I see someone bashing something they don't understand, I have to wonder what sick thing they are into that they are hiding. I would not be at all surprised to find out that those who scream the loudest about people who are gay, are also the people who have the sickest darkest personal lives ever.
OFC, I can't know whats in a person's head by their public stance on 1 or 2 subjects, so if I can say that, why is it that people who are afraid of gay people can't realize that there is no way to know a person just by their orientation?
Intolerance can make anyone the victim of abuse, even the intolerant. So to me, it would seem only wise that people rethink how they label others.
Just because someone's born with an inclination for or curiosity about something doesn't mean they have to act on it. That's what free will and choice are all about.
Yep, and they can lead fake and repressed lives so the rest of society can feel comfortable. The last thing we would want is for society to have to change and be more tolerant, right?
edit: Keeping in mind that what I said applies to legal activities of adults. OFC people should control urges they have for children, that is only the moral thing to do.
There is nothing "sexy" about a child. That's why that "Tot's and Tiara's" (or whatever it's called) makes me sick. Or that John Bennet Ramsey's mom needs a smackdown.
But I'd rather pervs look at actors online in the privacy of their own home rather than hang out near our schools or get jobs at day care centers.
She did...
Oh yeah, I forgot she passed away.
..yep. She died of ovarian cancer. No joke.
I have never watched that show and even when I see its commercials I become angered that little tiny children are being so exploited. Same goes for that other one....Dance Mom or whatever the hell its called.
The libturd judges and OBummer will outlaw prayer, have gay marriage, child porn and taxpayer paid abortions everywhere if not stopped in November.
Wake up!
Jello heads!
ABO 2012!
It's mostly the republican conservative preachers that are molesting kids these days. SO shove off.
So sloppy seconds errr joe, were your parents brother and sister? It is obvious the best part of you ran down the crack of yo' momma's a$$ they day you were born
At last---some sanity from the bench. Starting with Chris Hansen on down, there has been a psychotic witchhunt for alleged "child predators", clearly browsing through some websites is not the same as molesting kids. The law needs to have some perspective into whati poses a genuine threat.
BUT child porn is ILLEGAL....OKAY!
Keep throwing people in prisons needlessly, America. Prisoners only serve to drain the economy. Long term, that will harm far more children than someone looking at porn.
Gay marrige yesterday,child porn today. Welcome to the United States.
This is a loophole that will be exploited by these sick and twist pervs. Do something about it, New York! Close that loophole!
It really isn't much of a loophole - those who like child porn have huge hard drives (both internal and external) to collect their photos and videos. That is the evidence that should be used to convict.
Keep in mind someone can enter an office (or a public school/college classroom) and access child porn on computers that are not secured in some way. And - keep in mind - there are many people (teens included) who know how to bypass security and access porn sites.
Even when they don't download - information is stored in the cache. Authorities must show that the accused is the only person who had access to that computer.
Sadly - there are those who get remote access to personal computers and store their child porn there - unknown to the owner.
Anyone arrested (but innocent) better get the best technical help available to examine the computer involved for these outside intruders.
It does appear that this guy was convicted for the correct reasons. LOL - obviously - there will now be a lot of people who will set the cache on their Browser to automatically empty on exit.
That stinks NY. What about the people that are posted in your neighbor-hood for being child molesters.Is it still okay?
This has NOTHING to do with liberal, conservative or independent politics. This is simply a case of sheer stupidity, total absence of common sense, failure to understand cause and effect and blatant disregard for the welfare of children. All attributes that transcend ANY and ALL political persuasions. Apparently these judges were born stupid because they sure didn't learn this.
They made the right call. Child pornography is obviously abhorrent, but the question here is whether or not finding child pornography in a person's browser cache is sufficient evidence to charge them with a crime. I think it's very plausible that someone could end up with these images in their browser cache completely inadvertently. How do you think people get viruses and malware? The web is a chaotic and messy place, and people would probably be very surprised at what an expert could find in their browser cache. Every image from every web page, advertisement and popup they've ever come across while browsing. And that's even before taking into consideration the possibility of someone else using the browser or malicious software doing things beyond the user's control.
If you have a computer on a network, such as a college or company, for instance, do you know for certain everything that is on your computer or in your computer's cache? Hacking into networks is easy these days.
If you have a computer on a network, like a college or company, do you know everything that is on your computer and in your computer's cache? Hacking is easy.
What a toilet NYC has become. Liberalism at its finest. JSW says perhaps his computer was hacked? Was there evidence? Maybe a friggin martian put the smut on the mans computer. Libs always looking for excuses and bs.
alan-2014309, This has nothing to do with liberal-conservative politics, you idiot. If you wanna accuse the liberals for everything that goes wrong in America at least try to find some evidence to support what you're saying, you idiot.