The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court. The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100 images of child pornography were found on his computer's cache. Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image's data is saved in the computer's memory cache. The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image.
Uh...they did NOT say what OP is claiming...they said the cache is not the same as intentional viewing. I'm an IT pro (ok, ex pro, retired CIO/IT-Manager/Sys-Admin due to being disabled) 100 images is not proof...popups can do that in a split second...and the popup can be hidden, not viewed by the current user at any time (pay per referral scripting scams some pages/Trojans/viruses). Advertising services that are referenced in a webpage can be compromised, and cause such images to be in a cache... intent, the willing attempt to view these images has to be proven...the 'law' has only said that the presence of the images in a pc's web browsers cache is not enough evidence...more proof is needed (web page source codes, time stamps, there is a 'paper trail' a real IT pro can follow) http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12.pdf knowing how 'some' lawyers love to spin anything though, they are going to tighten the definitions and such to stop the sly sneaky sleazebag lawyers from defending all pedophiles with child porn on a pc.
[quote name='"cball"']Uh...they did NOT say what OP is claiming...they said the cache is not the same as intentional viewing. I'm an IT pro (ok, ex pro, retired CIO/IT-Manager/Sys-Admin due to being disabled) 100 images is not proof...popups can do that in a split second...and the popup can be hidden, not viewed by the current user at any time (pay per referral scripting scams some pages/Trojans/viruses). Advertising services that are referenced in a webpage can be compromised, and cause such images to be in a cache... intent, the willing attempt to view these images has to be proven...the 'law' has only said that the presence of the images in a pc's web browsers cache is not enough evidence...more proof is needed (web page source codes, time stamps, there is a 'paper trail' a real IT pro can follow)[/quote] pretty much this. When I watch porn, sometimes some shit comes up that gives me the "I hope I don't get in deep shit because this popped up" feeling.
I'm kinda okay with this because, fuck... anyone can put pictures of child pornography online. I don't think that anyone should be locked up for accidentally viewing those images. What if someone who had a grunge against you linked you to a site with a bunch of child porn? If someone is purposefully viewing these images, saving them, making them, then yeah obviously lock the fucker up. But if we make it as simple as having these images in your cache... I feel like that makes it way too easy for someone to frame you just by getting you to click a link that contains shit like that.
yep...BOMBING someone with emails scripted to use porn pop ups has come up in my time...had to prove the employee did NOT actively seek to view the porn or the employee would have been fired...had to show others DID watch porn knowingly and willingly based on time stamps and surveillance of the plants office showing who was in the office with the pc...who was 'on the clock' and such... IT evidence is beyond the scope of expertise of the typical lawyer/judge and they have to seek an IT pro to find the proof or lack there of.
uh...if you know it is there, seen it, and did NOT report it to the authorities...you are guilty of aiding the child porn 'industry'...no way to excuse NOT reporting it to the police, PERIOD.
I mean, with 4chan, how much can anyone really do? Everyone knows that kinda shit is there. "Hello, detective? Yeah, I saw some child pornography on 4chan recently..." "Well, duh."
i've been on 4chan once....because somebody showed me a video of someone burning a puppy alive...i never went back
[quote name='"cball"'] uh...if you know it is there, seen it, and did NOT report it to the authorities...you are guilty of aiding the child porn 'industry'...no way to excuse NOT reporting it to the police, PERIOD.[/quote] they know about it, there's not much they can do. everybody posts anonymously because of the system they have set up.
[quote name='"Cloud10Beats"']i've been on 4chan once....because somebody showed me a video of someone burning a puppy alive...i never went back[/quote] not to double post about something off topic but this is why it should be closed. its nothing but child porn, pictures or links to videos of actual murders, women bashing, and everything else sick. as a female you can't post without being told "tits or gfto". if you send pics, you're usually called a whore and your topic is ignored anyway. and the mods know and only remove it if the post is flagged. ip's are rarely banned and so many people like it, not a lot of people flag it.
[quote name='"figarofigaro"']i felt uneasy even clicking on this thread [/quote] no worries, no NAMBLA members here
First off, 4chan isn't a hivemind. Just because /b/ is a shithole doesn't mean all the other boards are terrible. It is a great place to go for niche interest like /m/ (mechs), /co/ (comics), /tg/ (traditional games), /p/ (photography), etc. It's anonymous, there's no reason you can't post as a female. If you're told "tits or gtfo" it's because you're went out of your way to distinguish you're female despite being anon regardless of your opinion. (outside /cgl/, /r9k/, /soc/) You don't see guys post "I'm a guy btw". If someone really posted tits they deserve to be called an attention whore or anything else. You have nothing to prove to people on the internet and the fact an anonymous post drove them to do that when it could have easily been ignored projects their insecurities. There is 'board culture' if you go to a section without lurking for weeks it's going to be painfully obvious. People attack as a self moderation though it's really just bad posting. Report, hide, move on. Best option 10 out of 10 times.