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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.



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.



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

They can if they have probable cause and do a blood test.

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