This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 23 Jun 09, 11:08 AM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs   |
Naught illegal about filenames. Having a file called "3 year old gets fucked" is not a crime, and if they were to look at the file (I think) they'd be breaking the law. What men in all the world have shown such daring? | |||
| 23 Jun 09, 11:17 AM Backdooruk UK(BA), 12 yrs |
The law is possession, not viewing: If you think you possess child (or extreme) pornography you are breaking the law if you don't get rid of it once aware of it. They would be foolish not to report a fire called "3 year old gets fucked". They don't need to look at the contents of a file to report it. I imagine most chains of computer shops have a policy of reporting possible child pornography. - Chris
This is my voice, my weapon of choice | |||
| 23 Jun 09, 11:27 AM david_in_nottm UK(NG), 6 yrs |
Having worked in exactly the same job, years ago, (in PC World), it is necessary to go into the folder structure occasionally to manually delete infected files that the AV can't automatically delete. However, I know how dull, soul destroying and tedious it is clearing people's pr0n-filled, virus infected laptops before the wife finds out what they've been viewing, and I know exactly why they looked, it's because a: it's fun, and b: it breaks the tedium. We used to have informal competitions to find the worst/most hilarious self-pr0n on people's laptops, and yes, I have reported people to the police for k-pr0n before. there was no formal procedure laid out for this, we weren't expected to search, but if we came across anything, we just reported it to our manager and he dealt with it. Usually it involved fixing it, and sending it back with the user, and the police dealt with it at a later date (or were waiting for them at home, i don't know how it went.) One thing you need to be aware of is that when you hand your laptop/PC over to a repairer and sign the paperwork, you give them permission to look at any and all files on the HDD. /returns to lurking.
| |||
| 24 Jun 09, 2:42 AM doulos UK(SW), 6 yrs |
The story doesn't give too much indication of who this early victim of the new possession law is. Given that he is described as vulnerable, and they don't mention him posing a threat to anyone, my inclination is to believe this law is being used to punish a harmless individual for failing to conform to a certain conception of sexual morality. His "offending behaviour" that will now be addressed is one of a (possibly passing) sexual curiosity. The animal welfare question is really a red herring (though probably not literally). This guy has images of some bestial acts. He wasn't taking part in these acts, and it is far from clear that the acts depicted were really bad for the animals welfare. Even if they were, they wouldn't be as bad for animals as slaughtering them for food, the resulting images of which are plastered across fast food and supermarket advertising everywhere. This has nothing to do with animals and is all about "disgusting, offensive" sex. Which is bad enough on its own, but it also emphasises how BDSMers are very much in the firing line. It doesn't seem clear to me from the news report whether he plead guilty, though from the circumstances, this would seem to be likely. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken Edited 24 Jun 09, 2:45 AM by doulos | |||
| 24 Jun 09, 2:51 AM emark UK, 8 yrs |
Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18. Edited 24 Jun 09, 2:52 AM by emark | |||
| 24 Jun 09, 2:56 AM doulos UK(SW), 6 yrs |
Ah I didn't see that one. Thanks for the clarification. It is rather a shame as some of the defences could have been tested. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken | |||
| 24 Jun 09, 10:46 AM SirOpenSource UK(E), 6 yrs    |
On what basis would you have suggested to the defendant he plead not guilty? I would like to believe that would be workable but as HMG has just brought in this new possession of offences law there would be a lot of pressure to ensure a conviction no matter how light the sentence could be. SOS A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave - Mahatma Gandhi | |||
| 24 Jun 09, 11:05 AM missscott 3 yrs |
LOL, I'm pretty sure pigs, cattle, sheep, chickens, etc. in the millions, do not consent to be slaughtered and eaten but it is done every day | |||
| 24 Jun 09, 3:59 PM doulos UK(SW), 6 yrs |
There are few details on which to base a possible defence, but one might ask whether the images were deliberately saved and frequently accessed or saved automatically by a web browser. Were they accessed before or after the possession law came into force? If any of these things were brought into doubt, this man's conviction could have been avoided and a precedent for future defences might have been set. I am not saying it wasn't an open and shut case, I am just saying we don't know. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken | |||
| 24 Jun 09, 4:06 PM Backdooruk UK(BA), 12 yrs |
It doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if he had forgotton he had them. Case law establishes that as long as he once knew he possessed them and he still does possess them then he is guilty of the crime of possession (that one goes right back to drug laws and has been held in principle for child pornography). - Chris
This is my voice, my weapon of choice |
