Saturday, November 25, 2017
Case against California doctor dismissed because original image was not illegal and subsequent searches were illegal
The child pornography possession case against a California
oncologist has been dismissed after a federal judge had ruled that the original
evidence used to justify his home search inadmissible (May 18). Tom Jackman has
his update story in the Washington Post on p A2 on Friday, November 24, 2017. The defendant had filed suit with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Again, it’s worthy of note that images found in unallocated
space (related to deletion) may lack the metadata necessary to show possession in
the eyes of the law.
Furthermore, the one image in question, allegedly of a minor
female, may have constituted erotica but was not explicit enough to meet the
definition of child pornography, according to the judge. There is some controversy over this, as I
know other material on this issue claims that images (at least photos, not
animation) intended to arouse could be considered pornographic even if they don’t
“show everything.”
But the case is thrown out because all the subsequent
searches of the doctor’s house were ruled illegal, and therefore inadmissible,
because the original image did not meet the legal definition of child
pornography.
There remains a troubling question of whether technicians at
the Geek Squad center in Kentucky (where computers needing extensive repairs
are sent) were paid by the FBI and may have made gratuitous examinations of the
hard drives. Company policy says that technicians will not look for illegal
images but must report them when found. There remains a questions as to the
legal judgment of a technician as to what is an illegal image (as in this
case). We’ve covered before the
troubling possibility that an illegal image could be placed on a computer by
malware (and there is at least one variant of ransomware that does so).
The sex trafficking issue may seem part of this, because
many sex trafficking victims (especially overseas) are minors. Viewing an ad for sex trafficking would not
be illegal, but responding to one might well be.
Viewing of a motion picture of video or still image (on a
computer or smartphone) produced overseas could raise legal questions. In the United States, actors must certify
they are 18 or over in order to act in adult films. The age may be lower in
Europe. Most reputable production
companies enforce the 18 year old rule overseas, but some might not, exposing
the viewer to possible legal liability, it would seem.
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Thune's amendment to SESTA seen as unworkable by EFF
Senator John Thune (R-SD) has floated an amendment t SESTA (S 1693) that would criminalize online platforms that “assist, support, of facilitate” sex trafficking, and reinforce “state of mind” provisions. The “manager’s amendment” is explained in an EFF article Nov. 3 by Sophia Cope.
Thune seems to believe his amendment will make the law less
of a problem for “legitimate” hosts and forums, as they purport to implement
what Thune calls a “knowing” standard.
(See correlated post today on my main "BillBoushka" blog.)
(See correlated post today on my main "BillBoushka" blog.)
Tuesday, November 07, 2017
Anthony Weiner begins sentence for criminal behavior that really had indirect unintended consequences for all "the people"
Former Congressman Anthony Weiner was sentenced to 21 months in prison for a few
instances of receiving or transmitting obscene images with a minor under 16, in
early 2016. Some of the images had been
transmitted with apps that normally delete images after viewing.
He will also have three years of supervised release and have
to register as a sex offender. CNN
CNN ran the story Sept. 25 here.
The Huffington Post reported on Nov. 6 that he had reported
to start his sentence at a federal “treatment center” in Massachusetts.
Weiner’s activities wound up leading to complications during
the last two weeks of the 2016 regarding the discovery of emails from Hillary
Clinton to his ex wife. Had this not
happened. Hillary might have won the election.
So Weiner’s conduct had accidental consequences that
affected many people. This is a true example of where criminal justice is for “the
people” and not just one “victim”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)