Viewing images possession?

[IronWolf]

I am not too leery of such a law, for the reasons given above. The fact that it is on the books does not mean you're at all likely to go to jail for it alone. The idea is instead to give law enforcement a greater array of tools at their disposal in order to nail someone who is doing other things.

I agree, illegal images in your browser cache alone probably won't be sending you to jail in and of themselves. Rather than trust law enforcement though I would rather not see such a law. I believe law enforcement has the tools they need without taking something such as easily tampered with as the browser cache and adding it to their arsenal. If a suspect has downloaded images saved to the hard disk there is a better case of actual intent.

Take seatbelt laws, for example. Typically, a cop can't tell if you are wearing a seatbelt as you go by a speed trap at 55 mph. If, however, you're doing 90mph, and he pulls you over, and sees you aren't wearing a seatbelt, then you just jacked up your fine...

At 55mph or 90mph though it is still illegal to be without a seat belt.

 

[Umbran]

At 55mph or 90mph though it is still illegal to be without a seat belt.

Yes, but as the old saying goes - it isn't illegal if you don't get caught. The point is that on a standard highway, this law alone is not enforced or enforceable. If you don't do anything else wrong, you can pretty much drive around seatbeltless with impunity.

Similarly for the browser cache thing. At best, you have to be doing something else before someone is going to catch you with it. At worst, it is completely useless. Either way, it isn't particularly dangerous.

 

[HellHound]

Take seatbelt laws, for example. Typically, a cop can't tell if you are wearing a seatbelt as you go by a speed trap at 55 mph. If, however, you're doing 90mph, and he pulls you over, and sees you aren't wearing a seatbelt, then you just jacked up your fine...

I disagree - as in this case, all they need is someone else telling them that you are in possession, then they can get a warrant and look... and if legally your cache is your possession, they can bust.

That disturbs me.

 

[IronWolf]

Yes, but as the old saying goes - it isn't illegal if you don't get caught. The point is that on a standard highway, this law alone is not enforced or enforceable. If you don't do anything else wrong, you can pretty much drive around seatbeltless with impunity.

With the recent Click It or Ticket 2005 campaign I wouldn't necessarily say one was so safe driving around seatbelt-less in a state with primary seatbelt laws.

 

[IronWolf]

I disagree - as in this case, all they need is someone else telling them that you are in possession, then they can get a warrant and look... and if legally your cache is your possession, they can bust.

This is the scenario I was trying to get at, just couldn't get the words out.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree - as in this case, all they need is someone else telling them that you are in possession, then they can get a warrant and look... and if legally your cache is your possession, they can bust.

Can, in theroy,and will, in practice, are too very different things. Have you checked out the stories on the jails lately? They're crowded. Same for the courts. They are not going to go through the time and expense of trying to prosecute something for which reasonable doubt is so incredibly easy to generate.

 

[argo]

Your defense would basically be - "sir, they didn't find the offending material anywhere else. Nor have I any other connection to it. If I am so bright to eliminate all other connections to this, wouldn't I be bright enough to empty my cache?" That goes pretty well to "reasonable doubt" right there. And the prosecutor knows it, and so probably wouldn't hold you merely for having stuff in your cache.

An excellent point umbran!

Except that that is exactly what happened in the case linked by the OP and not only did the prosecutor go to trial but the jury convicted and the guy in question is doing 20 years as we speak.

The problem is that what constitutes "posession" is a question of Law and, in the US at least, juries only consider questions of Fact. If the prevailing law states that your internet cache is your "posession" then you can't argue that in front of the jury. The prosecutor simply calls his tech dude who says "I found these .jpg in the defendant's temporary internet folder" and he's got a slam-dunk case same as if he had found hard copy's of the same photos in the guy's closet. You're only viable defenses will be to argue that the pics in question are not what they seem (not really child porn and therefore legal) or that you were framed and somebody put them there.

So yeah, its kinda important that the appeals court decides weither or not having something in your temporary internet folder constitutes having it in your posession.

Later.