|
  Darth Walrus posted:Man, were the Yorkshire police involved in every major Eighties scandal?
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
I, uh, what?  Also if having a porn image of an 'unknown dead animal' is illegal, why has there not been a police search for the existence of Pig Dave's alleged photo?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
It's not so much that, as he was banned from using the internet after being found guilty in 2013 of downloading images of child abuse, and 2 counts of making them 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
This one is my favorite. Both for the answer and the fact the question was asked in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Yeah, I legit do not know what to think about that one. Did he have them in a folder called 'child abuse images' and they were asking him why he wouldn't call it 'pizza' instead? Did he have it named after some other foodstuff that was insider slang for something? 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
I imagine the context was "convince us that the CAI in this file called 'pizza' weren't put there by you", but that still raises more questions than it answers.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
I imagine the name 'pizza' was chosen on the basis of the old joke about pizza being good even when it's bad. If there's one thing paedophiles can't resist (other than kids) it's smug in-jokes with themselves on their computers.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
NO gently caress YOU DAD posted:I imagine the name 'pizza' was chosen on the basis of the old joke about pizza being good even when it's bad. If there's one thing paedophiles can't resist (other than kids) it's smug in-jokes with themselves on their computers. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cheese+pizza maybe
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
I suspected something like that.  it's a good thing that he got busted, but it always amazes me when these people hide their abuse images which they know are illegal and will make them universally reviled worse than teenagers hide their legal internet porn.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Yeah, I legit do not know what to think about that one. http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/fomer-bbc-exec-caught-child-porn-walks-explaining-accident/ Here is the actual article about it. It seems like there is a chance he may have legitimately just been an idiot that bulk downloaded a bunch of porn of which 0.45% was illegal but the knowledge that people have gotten worse sentences for much less (i.e. pictures of consenting adults) is still pissing me off.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Well, that's rather a different matter. But it still means that pedophiles are naming those folders pizza and it's presumably a term of art. I'm not going to let this ruin pizza for me.quote:you did not deliberately seek out this material but you must have been aware that there was a very obvious risk in downloading some of it would include unlawful and unpleasant material such as this. quote:He admitted downloading, and therefore making, the images quote:His computer only came under scrutiny after technicians were trying to fix mend it. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
If I download a movie do I get to claim royalties as film creator?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Well, that's rather a different matter. But it still means that pedophiles are naming those folders pizza and it's presumably a term of art. I'm not going to let this ruin pizza for me. I believe (although this is filtered through several non-savvy ears) that he downloaded a torrent of 4chan images, which included some CAI - hence the argument over whether or not he "hid" the CAI, the torrent included the directory structure the uploader used. The relatively lenient sentence is because while there was evidence that he had viewed the images therein there was no evidence he had specifically sought out said images. The "making" charge is just a strange wrinkle of the law - it's to avoid the historical ambiguity over whether a specific infringing file transferred to your computer without an overt step on your part (e.g. a browser downloading an image to a cache, or as in this case downloaded as part of a larger collection) is actually in your possession. Prior to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 it was possible to use a conduit defence (i.e. that because you did not overtly request the specific file and it was downloaded automatically, you have no more liability than your ISP or other network provider in the path between you and the server) against charges of possession of electronic CAI under the Protection of Children Act. SOA changed the definition of "making" an indecent (psuedo)photograph, which is the same offence you commit if you develop a film knowing it contains CAI, to include posssession of files containing CAI. It's still imperfect but it's close enough to be fairly uncontroversial. Actual *production* - i.e. taking the picture itself - is an entirely different offence under POCA.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
It still seems utterly bizarre. It seems right that the person recording the abuse of a child is treated more harshly (production) than the person duplicating the VHS or making photographic prints from the film (making) who in turn is treated more harshly than the person simply having it (possession). Under the traditional top-down model of media production, the person making duplicates was most likely intending to sell them or trade them as part of a ring, so making it (even if you aren't producing it) could be seen as intent to distribute even if there was no evidence of distribution. Under the current model of media production, the person downloading  is more likely just doing so for their own use than to sell or trade them, so the criminal intent is closer in nature to possession than making, distribution, or production.I guess that you could argue that as part of the peer-to-peer nature of torrents they would be distributing as well as possessing, but in terms of intent it seems divorced from the person duplicating material for financial gain or access to more material. At least we have an entire generation of people who can put 'music maker' on their CV now though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It still seems utterly bizarre. It seems right that the person recording the abuse of a child is treated more harshly (production) than the person duplicating the VHS or making photographic prints from the film (making) who in turn is treated more harshly than the person simply having it (possession). For this specific legal area, "making" and "possession" are exactly equivalent. Like I said, it addresses a particular legal point about what constitutes "possession", because possession has a specific and narrow legal definition. I can't remember the exact details but the case law for possession requires an overt act on the part of the possessor - i.e. you specifically take possession of the item. Changing the POCA definition of "possession" would require changing all other laws that make possession of something an offence, so it was much less work to use the existing offence of "making" - which downloading satisfies, because of course you cause a duplicate of the offending article to be created - to take the place of "possession". The punishment is exactly the same as possession offences for physical media. You also get to keep a lot of the reasonable person tests that the "making" offence has (so an ISP who inadvertently cache CAI has an affirmative defence in the same way Boots do if they unknowingly develop a roll of film containing CAI), because the internet introduces way too many shades of grey for "possession"-type laws. So like a lot of law, it makes very little sense, but makes a tiny bit more sense than all other possibilities - and if it made perfect sense how would lawyers make any money? e: Note I am very definitely not a lawyer and these are just my understanding of the situation, with the obvious proviso I could be completely and utterly wrong. goddamnedtwisto fucked around with this message at 11:24 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Curious if you were simply handed a USB stick and viewed the files if 'making' would apply. I should read the law...
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Curious if you were simply handed a USB stick and viewed the files if 'making' would apply. I should read the law... Yes, because you would be copying the image from the USB stick to the memory of the computer.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Isn't that the same line of thought that the EU tried when they said that you're copying the copyrighted content of a webpage when you open it and it goes into cache and that should be considered duplication of a copyrighted source?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Isn't that the same line of thought that the EU tried when they said that you're copying the copyrighted content of a webpage when you open it and it goes into cache and that should be considered duplication of a copyrighted source? technology_illiteracy.txt
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 12:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Guavanaut posted:Isn't that the same line of thought that the EU tried when they said that you're copying the copyrighted content of a webpage when you open it and it goes into cache and that should be considered duplication of a copyrighted source? Not sure what you're alluding to here. I mean from a strict legal perspective they're right, but it's also the very definition of an implied license to do so. There's so much bullshit flies around from all sides for anything to do with copyright and anything to do with the EU that this could be anything from an incredibly stupid attempt to enforce the Hague Convention to some nutter completely misinterpreting a technical addendum to a document and reposting it as BARMY BRUSSELS WANT TO MAKE THE WEB ILLEGAL.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
iirc most of the debate stemmed from 2001/29/EC, which would have made the simple act of viewing a website an act of copying that content, until the W3C or one of the other internet harmonization boards spotted it and said "this would break the entire web" and a subclause was added, stating:quote:(33) The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to an exception to allow certain acts of temporary reproduction, which are transient or incidental reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of a technological process and carried out for the sole purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made. The acts of reproduction concerned should have no separate economic value on their own. I don't think implied license would have been an affirmative defense against caching were that not added to the document, although it presumably would have been added after the first Copyright Troll v. Everyone Who Has Accessed Our Site case. Going back to the USB thing, I don't see how transient duplication in RAM should constitute making, but you could do them for possession of the physical stick assuming that they knew what was on it, and any transient cached copies/thumbnails on the system could be used as proof that they did. Criminal law is sufficiently divorced from copyright law that I'm not sure if that would be the case though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
It stems from the same sort of confusion, but of course under a very different set of circumstances. Basically most law is rooted in around 1837, and has a very real problem keeping up once you move out of the realm of the purely physical.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
My main problem with the 'making' thing is that it sounds semantically closer to 'producing' than 'possessing' to most people. And that should be important in law, it's heavily based on ensuring that words are understood to mean the same thing to all parties involved. That's one reason why language like champerty, barratry, praemunire, and turpitude have been expunged from the statute books, even if the acts that they refer to haven't, and why law around chemicals or any other field with terms of art have such long winded sections, and why when a freeman-on-the-land says "well actually I do not 'understand' the charges against me because understand means 'to stand under' and therefore..." the judge doesn't let out a howl and instantly collapse into a crumpled robe covered in ash and blood, but just silences them and tells them everyone knows the intent of the question. I don't think everyone would know what is meant by 'making' in that context though. The one plus side is that it's fun telling people that GCHQ and the MIs are legally allowed to make child abuse imagery and not just possess it. It makes people's minds go to strange places, but that just shows it's poor wording. Perhaps 'receiving' by analogy to stolen property or just a criminal law definition of 'downloading' would be better. I'm surprised that one hasn't entered the statute books after all the digital economy and anti-piracy stuff over the past decade.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:My main problem with the 'making' thing is that it sounds semantically closer to 'producing' than 'possessing' to most people. I get where you're coming from, but the law is full of all of these sort of wrinkles. We've only got round to defining "murder" in 1957, and the general rule is always that if you can make an existing bit of law (statute or case) fit a given offence it's better to use that than to create a new definition, because any totally new offence is almost certain to have massive holes in it that have to be patched up with case law. So for example, as I already stated, the "making" offence comes with a load of case law about intent and mitigation, to cover both the innocent (as someone who is partially legally responsible for a fair chunk of the content viewed on the internet in the UK I'm very happy about that) and the guilty (I don't have the exact case law but I'm sure every variation on "Ah but you see I looked at the porn through a periscope at a screen controlled by someone I've never met" has been tried and shot down over the years). Transcribing all that into law would be a nightmare, and isn't really worth it for the sake of avoiding offending people's linguistic sensibilities.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
It seems that the inquiry into Kincora boys home is relevant to this thread's topic.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-former-advisor-admits-8088612 Judge says that the word indecent has no real meaning and is entirely subjective based on what people reckon society as a whole might think about it. Defence responds by arguing that British society are basically a bunch of pedos anyway so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Kaislioc posted:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-former-advisor-admits-8088612 That's really not what either side is arguing, and there's a very important wider issue here. I'll give you a hint - read the descriptions of the photos very, very carefully, and look for the very deliberate hole in the reporting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:That's really not what either side is arguing, and there's a very important wider issue here. I'll give you a hint - read the descriptions of the photos very, very carefully, and look for the very deliberate hole in the reporting. Help me out here, I think I'm missing something. It gives their ages at the time the photos were downloaded, but not when they were taken? So, they were much younger in the pictures? Or known to him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
I think that might be it. From the prosecution: "All the images are of young girls, when I say young, in all but one case they were 14 or under when the images were downloaded, so they were younger when the images were taken." Which also indicates that they were personally known to at least someone involved in the case to have their current ages. There's also "While the genitals are not wholly exposed that area is often the clear focus of the picture as if to make the unambiguous suggestion to the viewer 'look here, look what you can't' wholly see'." which makes some implications about the posing of them. There's no good way to phrase this, but I really don't want to look for the hole here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
It's the "freely accessible website" part, and you're heading entirely in the wrong direction on his relationship to the children in the pictures. The hint is that there's not exact testimony of the ages of the children when the pictures were taken but they are able to know the ages of the children at the time of the download. However I've now heard a slightly different version of events from another person so it might not be quite as clear-cut as I believed, so I'll keep shtum until the case is over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Well, there's all kinds of freely accessible websites with stuff that would be considered obscene or in violation of the so-called 'extreme pornography' laws etc. etc. while not being straight-up CAI, so I wouldn't say simply being online says much. Unless the implication is that these photos would have been perfectly understandable within the context of the site they were downloaded from, but out of context looked indecent, like the whole argument with the 'extreme porn' thing where the BBFC might say that a film is perfectly legal but if you took a handful of frames from the reel and developed them as prints they could be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Sounds like it's Facebook or Reddit, the former of which has pictures of holidays that were taken innocently but specific ones were picked out for their accidental focal point, or it could be reddit where they freely linked whatever they found with scummy as hell captions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
It figures that the legendary "pervert goes through your profile pics looking for kids, MOMS set everything to private NOW" of facebook forward fame would turn out to be both real and a senior Tory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Well, there's all kinds of freely accessible websites with stuff that would be considered obscene or in violation of the so-called 'extreme pornography' laws etc. etc. while not being straight-up CAI, so I wouldn't say simply being online says much. That's pretty much exactly what the situation with these particular images is. I emphasise that because there's a load of other weird poo poo about this case, but basically there's a better than zero - in fact a better than 50% - chance that you, I, and everyone else in this thread has images on our hard drives right now that would qualify as CAI if he's convicted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Peerages all round!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:That's pretty much exactly what the situation with these particular images is. I emphasise that because there's a load of other weird poo poo about this case, but basically there's a better than zero - in fact a better than 50% - chance that you, I, and everyone else in this thread has images on our hard drives right now that would qualify as CAI if he's convicted. But surely context is important? I have pictures of my kids that could feasibly be seen as a bit dodgy, but they are my kids, I take a lot of photos of them and they are exhibitionists with no sense of propriety (my daughter has basically decided that clothes are for wimps). It's like it's not unusual for me or my husband to sleep in the same bed as one of the kids but if some other adult slept in the bed with them that would be weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:But surely context is important? I have pictures of my kids that could feasibly be seen as a bit dodgy, but they are my kids, I take a lot of photos of them and they are exhibitionists with no sense of propriety (my daughter has basically decided that clothes are for wimps). Well exactly, and this is the entire problem. While the context isn't quite as innocent as having a picture of your kids at the beach, it's certainly not even as dodgy as saving pictures off Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
I'm going to guess some kind of stock images or catalog pictures or something then. I was under the impression that kids' clothing retailers tended to stick to photos of the products only rather than models for exactly those reasons, but maybe I'm wrong and he could have viewed or collected them by browsing them and the prosecutorial accusation that they're 'barely concealed' is just the courtroom version of the tabloid "you won't believe what clothes they're selling for kids now!" That still raises questions along the lines of the film reel vs. frame prints debate, in that trawling a large and legal fashion site for a handful of pictures of children in underwear is, uh, questionable behavior even if it is not illegal. Possibly not something that should be criminal, if only for the precedent that it would set, or something that might be subject to a 'fair reason' defense like "I was buying clothes for my own kids", but certainly eyebrow raising in isolation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
If only we were in Scotland. This sounds like the kind of case the "Not Proven" verdict was made for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:04
|
|
