Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Limewire: Man DL's "GGW", Gets CP, May get 20Follow

#27 Dec 07 2009 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
PigtailsOfDoom of Future Fabulous! wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:

Also, Limewire? Ew. Limewire is how a couple of friends in college got busted for music downloads; not surprising that the Fed is also scanning downloads.


That's because they were stupid and didn't turn off uploading. My freshman year in college our RA specifically told us at our first meeting that we weren't supposed to download stuff from the internet, and if we got caught our internet in our rooms would be shut off, but if we wanted to get away with it we just had to turn off uploading.
It could have been an FBI honeypot.

Quote:

BrownDuck wrote:
I think there's more to the story than we're being told. How did the FBI track him down? Was it a sting operation? Did he tell someone about it? I find it unbelievable that the FBI would dedicate any resources to tracking down a single accidental download by some innocent individual when there are oodles of real perverts out there raking in the CP by the gigabyte. Something doesn't add up.


I totally agree. And I think it's completely bizarre that the lawyer (even if he is a crappy PD) defending this guy can't make a case if he really did delete the file shortly after watching it and realizing it was kiddie ****.
The point is not that he's necessarily crappy, it's that he probably has thousands of other cases and is rewarded on getting them through as quickly as possible, hence the plea bargain.
#28 Dec 07 2009 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
The point is not that he's necessarily crappy, it's that he probably has thousands of other cases and is rewarded on getting them through as quickly as possible, hence the plea bargain.


Right, crappy lawyering.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#29 Dec 07 2009 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
I think that he could have covered his *** if he had attempted to inform the authorities that such a file was being circulated on Limewire at all.

You're not supposed to just delete it. You're supposed to delete it and tell the mods that someone is sharing it, because if you don't THEY can get in trouble too.

If there was any evidence he had sent a notice to Limewire that there was a mislabeled file that was actually CP, and they ought to perhaps get such authorities involved as necessary, then they'd have no case at all.
#30 Dec 07 2009 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
The point is not that he's necessarily crappy, it's that he probably has thousands of other cases and is rewarded on getting them through as quickly as possible, hence the plea bargain.


Right, crappy lawyering.
Sure, it's crappy lawyering, but it explains why he doesn't want to even bother making a case. Nothing to do with his (in)ability and everything to do with problems endemic to the system. Of course, this whole part of the conversation is really splitting hairs, because I would for damn sure take a mountain of debt and a competent lawyer over 3 years of prison and being tarred with a CP conviction.
#31 Dec 07 2009 at 1:09 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
catwho wrote:
I think that he could have covered his *** if he had attempted to inform the authorities that such a file was being circulated on Limewire at all.

You're not supposed to just delete it. You're supposed to delete it and tell the mods that someone is sharing it, because if you don't THEY can get in trouble too.

If there was any evidence he had sent a notice to Limewire that there was a mislabeled file that was actually CP, and they ought to perhaps get such authorities involved as necessary, then they'd have no case at all.
There are no Limewire mods.

Informing the FBI? That's a terrible idea. Their job isn't to police the internet, their job is to make convictions, and a CP conviction looks gooood. Hell, if you tell them about the CP, they have:

a) a confession that you downloaded CP (there is no provision in the law for "accidents")
b) proof that you downloaded it

Why the hell would you want to give them that? The only responsible thing to do (that is, looking out for yourself, because the FBI sure as hell isn't going to look out for you) would be to nuke your hard drive.


Edited, Dec 7th 2009 1:12pm by Sweetums
#32 Dec 07 2009 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I'm going to go with there being more to this story than we're being told. As several people have pointed out, the pictures in question would be unlikely to have drawn any attention, doubly so if he did in fact delete them soon after downloading. I suppose it's possible that he may have downloaded a bunch of stuff, didn't look at it all right away, but had some upload feature configured, resulting in it appearing as though he was the source of the files. Even then, it would seem like you'd have a reasonable case to argue here, and I can't believe anyone would plea that out given the consequences of the plea itself.

3.5 years in prison, 10 years probation, and life as a registered sex offender? If that's the plea he's hoping to get, there's got to be a heck of a lot more charges and clear evidence of guilt than them finding some deleted files on his home computer hard drive from a couple years ago.


An obvious legal challenge is the notion of "possession". A deleted file should not qualify. Assuming the story we're being told is accurate, it doesn't add up at all...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Dec 07 2009 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
An obvious legal challenge is the notion of "possession". A deleted file should not qualify. Assuming the story we're being told is accurate, it doesn't add up at all...


It is evidence of previous possession.
#34 Dec 07 2009 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
An obvious legal challenge is the notion of "possession". A deleted file should not qualify. Assuming the story we're being told is accurate, it doesn't add up at all...


It is evidence of previous possession.


So is trace amounts of weed in an otherwise empty bag. The police don't get to charge you for possession of the full bag though, do they? No matter how clear it was that you at one point had a full bag, it's not full now, so they can't charge you with possession of that quantity.


Electronic media open up all sorts of new wrinkles on the issue of what you have and what you don't have. Viewing something briefly online still results in a cache of the image stored on your hard drive (not what happened in this case, but I'm using it to illustrate a point). Even if you delete that cache file, it's still present on your hard drive until it is over-written by another file and can be recovered using the exact same techniques the FBI used in this case.

So, you can be charged for possession of anything you happen to browse on the internet? Really? Do you "own" that image? I'm quite sure that most legal experts would argue that you don't. So at what point do you own it? At what point are you legally responsible for possession of said item? Usually, we make that determination based on the point of decision. If you consciously decide to copy a file to your hard drive and keep it, knowing what the content is, you are responsible for it. Doing a mass download of content and later realizing it's something illegal should not subject you to legal consequences (for the content at least).


The difference here is that while it's unlikely for a big bag of weed to end up hidden under your bed without you knowing about it, it's entirely possible for files to end up on your computer without you having a clue what they are or how they got there. It's important that our legal treatment of issues surrounding those sorts of situations mature with the technology itself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Dec 07 2009 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
An obvious legal challenge is the notion of "possession". A deleted file should not qualify. Assuming the story we're being told is accurate, it doesn't add up at all...


It is evidence of previous possession.


So is trace amounts of weed in an otherwise empty bag. The police don't get to charge you for possession of the full bag though, do they? No matter how clear it was that you at one point had a full bag, it's not full now, so they can't charge you with possession of that quantity.


Electronic media open up all sorts of new wrinkles on the issue of what you have and what you don't have. Viewing something briefly online still results in a cache of the image stored on your hard drive (not what happened in this case, but I'm using it to illustrate a point). Even if you delete that cache file, it's still present on your hard drive until it is over-written by another file and can be recovered using the exact same techniques the FBI used in this case.

So, you can be charged for possession of anything you happen to browse on the internet? Really? Do you "own" that image? I'm quite sure that most legal experts would argue that you don't. So at what point do you own it? At what point are you legally responsible for possession of said item? Usually, we make that determination based on the point of decision. If you consciously decide to copy a file to your hard drive and keep it, knowing what the content is, you are responsible for it. Doing a mass download of content and later realizing it's something illegal should not subject you to legal consequences (for the content at least).

The difference here is that while it's unlikely for a big bag of weed to end up hidden under your bed without you knowing about it, it's entirely possible for files to end up on your computer without you having a clue what they are or how they got there. It's important that our legal treatment of issues surrounding those sorts of situations mature with the technology itself.


I didn't read this because you are attempting to describe how the law is with very little legal knowledge, rather than giving your own opinion on what the law should be. Well, I'll be honest, that is among the reasons I didn't read it.
#36 Dec 07 2009 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
If we all restricted ourselves to posting only about things we are experts, the topics on this forum would consist mostly of ************ techniques interspersed with occasional posts about okra farming, yummy and attractive lunches, and how best to bilk the medical industry out of contract funds.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Dec 07 2009 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
If we all restricted ourselves to posting only about things we are experts, the topics on this forum would consist mostly of ************ techniques interspersed with occasional posts about okra farming, yummy and attractive lunches, and how best to bilk the medical industry out of contract funds.


Lol! well said Sir!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#38 Dec 07 2009 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
But the case can't solely rest on "he deleted it so it must be ok!"

I could run a child **** ring for a year, delete everything, and if took them five more years to trace it back to me, I probably don't have a legal leg to stand on simply because I deleted the ****.

#39 Dec 07 2009 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
If we all restricted ourselves to posting only about things we are experts, the topics on this forum would consist mostly of ************ techniques interspersed with occasional posts about okra farming, yummy and attractive lunches, and how best to bilk the medical industry out of contract funds.


You see no gap between being an expert and your level of legal knowledge?
#40 Dec 07 2009 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
CBD wrote:
But the case can't solely rest on "he deleted it so it must be ok!"

I could run a child **** ring for a year, delete everything, and if took them five more years to trace it back to me, I probably don't have a legal leg to stand on simply because I deleted the ****.



Yes. Which is why several of us are assuming there's more to it than just some deleted files on his computer.


My point is that if it actually was just some deleted files on his computer, the "I deleted them when I realized what they were!" excuse should hold up just fine...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Dec 07 2009 at 2:12 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
My point is that if it actually was just some deleted files on his computer, the "I deleted them when I realized what they were!" excuse should hold up just fine...


And my point was that said excuse probably wouldn't hold up in court.
#42 Dec 07 2009 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
This is why it is important to do a full sector-by-sector format of your HD and reinstall your OS at least once a year.
#43 Dec 07 2009 at 2:58 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My point is that if it actually was just some deleted files on his computer, the "I deleted them when I realized what they were!" excuse should hold up just fine...


And my point was that said excuse probably wouldn't hold up in court.


Of course it would. If you were sent an envelope in the mail accidentally (wrong address on it), and it contained pictures of child pornography, and you we so repulsed that you tossed them in the fireplace and burned them, that excuse would absolutely hold up in court. The key point being whether or not they could prove that you were the intended recipient and you intended to receive the materials (and/or sought them out). Assuming it was some **** dealer who wrote the wrong address on a package, you would not be charged.

The only difference here is that while the FBI can't sift through the ashes in your fireplace to reconstruct the images on the pictures you burned, they absolutely can do this with files on a computer. The technology makes it possible to reconstruct something that has been destroyed, but the action by the defendant is identical in both cases.

More to the point, you are vastly more likely to accidentally be exposed to something you didn't intend on the internet than via the Post Office. There is no way to know the contents of a file you've downloaded (intentionally or not), until you view it. While we might expect someone receiving child **** in the mail to alert authorities, it's pretty common practice for someone running across something "wrong" on the internet to just delete it and move on.


As I said, it's something our legal system has to catch up on. The question is "what constitutes possession?". Normally, you have to actually have access to something to possess it. A deleted file on a hard drive, which can only be accessed via expensive equipment used by experts in data retrieval normally does not qualify.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Dec 07 2009 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My point is that if it actually was just some deleted files on his computer, the "I deleted them when I realized what they were!" excuse should hold up just fine...


And my point was that said excuse probably wouldn't hold up in court.


Of course it would.
No it wouldn't, due to the simple fact that as soon as "child pornography" is mentioned, all presumptions of innocence (and well, sense) go straight out the window and you are left to fight an uphill battle.

Anyone who's used Limewire to download music can attest to the fact that it is one of the most unreliable networks out there, and things are commonly mislabeled (I had a lot of music by "Aphex Twins" and "if you like {long list of band names}"), so I'd be willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt before he's locked up for several years and has every opportunity to live a normal life basically taken away.

Edited, Dec 7th 2009 3:17pm by Sweetums
#45 Dec 07 2009 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My point is that if it actually was just some deleted files on his computer, the "I deleted them when I realized what they were!" excuse should hold up just fine...


And my point was that said excuse probably wouldn't hold up in court.


Of course it would.
No it wouldn't, due to the simple fact that as soon as "child pornography" is mentioned, all presumptions of innocence (and well, sense) go straight out the window and you are left to fight an uphill battle.


Sorry. You're right. I responded using his word instead of mine.

I originally said "should".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Dec 07 2009 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
but the action by the defendant is identical in both cases.


Depending on whether or not he watched it immediately after it finished downloading, the action may be identical. Depending on whether or not he is telling the truth, the action may be identical.

gbaji wrote:
it's pretty common practice for someone running across something "wrong" on the internet to just delete it and move on.


I know you're not crazy enough to be implying that "common practice" = "the right thing to do.""

I also know that I was about five years old when I learned that the proper way to handle something bad is to contact those in charge. When you're five, it's mommy and daddy. When you're twenty, it's the police. You can ignore that if you like, but it's still what you're supposed to do.

gbaji wrote:
I originally said "should".


And I absolutely agree that should the man be telling the truth he shouldn't get in any form of legal trouble. The reality, however, is that "I didn't mean to!" doesn't hold up in a court of law.


Edited, Dec 7th 2009 4:22pm by CBD
#47 Dec 07 2009 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
but the action by the defendant is identical in both cases.


Depending on whether or not he watched it immediately after it finished downloading, the action may be identical. Depending on whether or not he is telling the truth, the action may be identical.

gbaji wrote:
it's pretty common practice for someone running across something "wrong" on the internet to just delete it and move on.


I know you're not crazy enough to be implying that "common practice" = "the right thing to do.""

I also know that I was about five years old when I learned that the proper way to handle something bad is to contact those in charge. When you're five, it's mommy and daddy. When you're twenty, it's the police. You can ignore that if you like, but it's still what you're supposed to do.
Contacting the police about CP is one of the dumbest things you can do. Enjoy your jail.
#48 Dec 07 2009 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
***
3,118 posts
Quote:

So is trace amounts of weed in an otherwise empty bag. The police don't get to charge you for possession of the full bag though, do they? No matter how clear it was that you at one point had a full bag, it's not full now, so they can't charge you with possession of that quantity.
They can if they have probable cause and do a blood test.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopsterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Law+Enforcement+%26+Criminal+Justice&L2=Law+Enforcement&sid=Eeops&b=terminalcontent&f=eops_q2_law_enforcement_qa&csid=Eeops wrote:
How does Question 2 define possession of marijuana?

The new law expands the definition of possession. Section 32L states that possession of an ounce or less of marijuana or THC includes the traditional understanding of “possession,” but also includes having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one’s bloodstream.
#49 Dec 07 2009 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Contacting the police about CP is one of the dumbest things you can do. Enjoy your jail.


Boy, I wonder if I'd rather go into court as the person who got it, deleted it, and contacted the FBI or the person who got it, deleted it, pretended it never happened, and got fucked over later. This is a tough decision.

Maybe I'll just stick with not downloading ****. It's worked pretty well so far.
#50 Dec 07 2009 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
CBD wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Contacting the police about CP is one of the dumbest things you can do. Enjoy your jail.


Boy, I wonder if I'd rather go into court as the person who got it, deleted it, and contacted the FBI or the person who got it, deleted it, pretended it never happened, and got fucked over later. This is a tough decision.

Maybe I'll just stick with not downloading ****. It's worked pretty well so far.
None of the above, as the former would give the FBI a delightful confession that you did, in fact, download CP (intent isn't a part of the equation). What you do is delete it, nuke your hard drive, and if there are any questions, plead the fifth and call a fucking lawyer.

I don't use Limewire, but trusting the police is ******* naive.

Edited, Dec 7th 2009 3:32pm by Sweetums
#51 Dec 07 2009 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
While I do agree with gbaji that people who accidentally download child **** or other illegal materials should not be punished, it's a lot harder to implement without giving the child **** industry an extra leg to stand on. I completely agree with the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. On some level, I think it should be this way in this case as well, but in cases like these it's a lot harder to prove intent one way or the other.

There definitely should be some law protecting people from going to prison and registering as a sex offender for accidentally downloading child ****, but it's never going to happen. Most files downloaded on Livewire are being illegally distributed. Why would the FBI want to protect people that are already breaking laws anyways? Not only that, this is a case of protecting children. No politician in his or her right mind is going to propose a law to protect filthy illegal downloaders at the risk of putting kids who are forced into child **** rings at further danger.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 178 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (178)