388
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
388 points (97.5% liked)
World News
37319 readers
2775 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
...Which, okay, makes sense that you wouldn't be guilty. It would be like when people were airdropping shit a few years ago (is that still a thing?) and people were unwittingly getting pictures of someone else's penis. The didn't ask for or go looking for pictures of someone's penis, it was served to them without their intent or desire. The defendant's argument is that he didn't download these, they were sent to him and his phone automatically downloaded them. Is that true? IDK. But i it is true, then he didn't have criminal intent.
But moving along...
"Sexual violence [...] motivated by pornography". That is... Not a thing. Porn doesn't make people commit violent crimes. If anything, porn availability and consumption appears to decrease sexual assaults.
Porn addiction is also not a thing. Outside of religious and moral crusaders, you won't hear the phrase. Psychologists that specialize in human sexuality do not refer to porn addiction. When you look at the background of the people talking about porn "addiction" in the US, it always goes back to religion and morality, not clinical research.
I don't think you can unknowingly download something. Sounds like a lie to cover up. I'm not a software engineer. But I do not think it works that way unless you are downloading immense files or zips. If that's the case it should be clearly shown with what they did download.
You just unknowingly downloaded this picture of Zoboomafoo. It is now on your storage drive in the form of a cached image file. It's temporary, and will be removed the next time your cache is cleared if you ever do that. Otherwise, it will sit there for some time, lurking in your system. Good thing it's only Zoboomafoo!
Enjoy!
It's on my phone?! Where?
In a temporary cache directory. If you're on Android, you can clear it by going to your app settings, viewing storage usage on whichever app you used to view this, and clearing the cache. For example, the app I use for lemmy currently has 100MB in it's cache. My Firefox app on my phone currently has 555MB is cached files. This can includes things such as web pages, JavaScript files, and the images I've encountered while visiting the web who knows when, I rarely clear that shit.
I always assumed that was cleared automatically after time.
It is, probably.
But it won't be written over with zeros, so it's all still there until something else actually writes over it. A mobile device is flash memory, so the controller wear leveling might not get back to that spot for a bit. It might decide that spot is a bad sector and never write over it.
Regardless. He can't be seeing this or downloading it unknowingly was my point. It can't be happening in the background. If he is viewing it, it's known.
The person in the article who apparently viewed it multiple times over a long period of time absolutely did so deliberately.
I think the point in sending you the image was to show that, in general, it is possible for images to be present on your computer without you actively attempting to access them. Not to say that the argument was valid in this particular case.
Well that's my point. Is they aren't there just on accident. But it's being taken as he didn't do it. He absolutely did it. The mechanism of how that exists is clearer now, but my point still stands. He didn't not view them causing them to be in temporary memory on accident. That doesn't happen.
Dude, someone posted that picture, explained to you how that unwarranted picture is now in the cache on your phone, and you're just doubling down? Come on. That was a top tier and educated explanation. Why ask the question in the first place if you don't want the answer?
Because I said it in the first statement. It didn't happen by accident. If you want to be rude I can come give you my address and you can try and act tough to my face and see how that works out for you. I stand by what I said and the facts fully support what I said. It wasn't an accident he was watching child porn. Now either grow a pair or lose you posture. Get it?
OK, suppose the police find out that a CSAM image was posted on a forum. About an hour later it was deleted by the mods, but in that time it was unwittingly viewed a number of times by users of the forum who had no idea it was in that thread. Some users didn't even scroll down far enough in the thread to actually see the image, but it still got grabbed by their web browser, because the browser loads the whole page, not just the part you're looking at. Now suppose that you are one of those users.
Now the cops subpoena a list of every IP address that downloaded that image, tie those IP addresses back to specific users. Now you get your door kicked in by the cops looking for evidence of child porn stored on your computer. And depending on various other factors, they might even still find that image stored there in some form, without you having any idea about it.
This is why it's important to understand that there is no technical difference between downloading and viewing. Your lawyer's job is now going to be to prove that you never wittingly chose for that image to be delivered to your computer, even though it absolutely was delivered there as a direct result of actions you took. Your web browser made the request to the server to send that image to it, because you made the request to open that page. So there has to be more than just the technical action of "downloading." There needs to be intent.
Now in this case, there clearly was intent, given that the image was viewed multiple times over two years. But that's important context that is needed on top of just the fact that the image was downloaded.
Careful guys, hes ~ dangerous ~
Good doggie ;)
Please tell me you work in tech. I want my daily lmfaoizzle.
Nope! I'm a logistics manager.