Sources: The Smoking Gun, Philly.com, BBC News, via Slashdot
quote: Microsoft should have warned the defendant that molesting children or sharing illegal pictures of them might result in jail time.
quote: PhotoDNA doesn't check your e-mails for ways to advertise to you. It just maintains the anonymity of your photos while making sure they don't look like known child porn.
quote: Your missing the point..In the end Microsoft is obtaining evidence that the police would need a search warrant for
quote: This person clearly has no idea how the legal system works. In fact, anybody condemning Microsoft or Google for tipping off authorities has no idea how the legal system works.
quote: Possessing Child Porn is like possessing an unregistered firearm used in a crime. Everyone who comes into contact with that weapon is put at risk.
quote: You do not get a reasonable expectation of privacy on a third party's server, which they provide to you free of charge in exchange for agreeing to their terms of service.
quote: At the end, are you truly saying that Being Gay is equivalent to being a pedophile? If you are, I feel very sorry for you and anybody who knows you. One is a choice of something to do in private with another person who chose the same thing, while the other is exploitation of a person that has no choice in the matter.
quote: You also suggest that having and distributing child porn should not be illegal, which imho is just wrong. I don't agree with the op saying it is the same thing as owning a gun, not even close, but to say it should not be against the law is idiotic.
quote: Second thing is that it is not a private service, you authorize them to scan the items when you sign up for the service. In some cases, they use the scanned info to make money, other cases (like this one) it is simply a way to cut storage space(in some cases 90+%). If you want privacy, run your own server, and fully secure it, and don't send your data out to a service that you agree will scan it.
quote: Why should it be against the law? If you have an image of people being murdered, does it mean you committed those murders? What if said pictures of dismembered bodies gets you off...is that "evil" if you are doing it in a private setting and not actually murdering people?
quote: I mean, if people were getting murdered solely to take those pics, then yeah, it's just as wrong on many levels. If you're simply arguing "I like to look at gruesome dismembered things" - As digusting as it is, it's different. People and animals die and get dismembered all the time from nobody's fault. The images can be obtained through legal means without ever committing a crime.
quote: Should people face criminal charges for writing stories or song lyrics that depict illegal acts?
quote: I'm not sure why you view these similarly. People do not murder someone to take their picture and feed into weird fetishes. The only images of murder victims out there are images taken after the fact by bystanders, law enforcement, military personnel, etc. Such things occur all the time and are the norm in the world.
quote: With child pornography the photographer is ALWAYS knowingly committing a pretty heinous act involving forcing an under-aged child to partake in sexual acts against their will, and take photographs specifically to fulfill a fetish based entirely on that illegal act. The existence of the market for such media drives more abductions of young children for this purpose.
quote: That is just *so* far from the point, I don't even know how to reply to that.
quote: I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time following... I asked you a pretty specific question: IF someone records video or photographs themselves in the act of murdering someone, and then a third party who had nothing to do with said murder acquires the media, should the third party be as guilty as the murderer?
quote: I did answer your question, just maybe not directly. Yes they should be guilty. Maybe not charged with the murder itself, but you were an accomplice to the crime and you actively participated.
quote: The rest of your post is just so absurd I won't bother. The sheer fact that you are advocating the idea that obtaining and owning child pornogrtaphy is OK suggests that you don't understand the differences in your own examples.
quote: Merely owning video or photos of a crime in progress does not make someone an accomplice to anything, especially if said media was obtained AFTER the crime was committed and the perpetrator has been locked up.
quote: What, exactly, is absurd about anything I said? I'm not advocating pedophilia; if advocacy is what you read then it's possibly a freudian slip on your part.
quote: My point is quite obvious - possession of information or media depicting a crime should not in itself be a crime if the possessor had nothing to do with committing said crime.
quote: If someone printed out some pedo porn photos and put them in your bag - without you knowing - and then proceeded to call the cops and report that he saw you looking at these photos then stash them in your bag, you'd likely have criminal charges brought against you when the cops suddenly show up and find the photos in YOUR possession...but hey, keep tooting the "save the children" horn while you're getting reamed up the buttox by bubba for that heinous "crime" you committed.
quote: Due process exists for a reason - and no matter how wretched a crime may be, there is never any valid reason for due process to be circumvented or abbreviated just to appease a figurative lynch mob.
quote: That was my entire point. You can't have child pornography that happened "after the fact." It requires taking photography during the act of the crime. I guarantee you that having pictures of a murder in progress would land you with just as much questioning. Ever hear of a snuff film? They're highly illegal in almost every corner of the world.
quote: Are you actually aware of what a fruedian slip is?
quote: Child pornography exists due to the demand for it. Why else would people take and distribute or sell pictures of it? So by all means, having copies of child pornography is producing demand in the industry for it to happen.
quote: Yeah, because everyone conveniently carries around printed copies of child porn in their backpacks at all times. Very believable scenario. It would take all of an hour at the police station to sort out that the person is highly unlikely to be guilty.
quote: When did I say it shouldnt?
quote: You may not have stole them, but that does not mean you have to right to receive/possess them and can be convicted if you are found with stolen goods.
quote: Your argument about having somebody stuff pedo porn in your bag while walking down the street would be the same is somebody walked by and threw some stolen goods in your bag.
quote: In this case, it was not somebody else uploading it and trying to frame him unless they had his username and password. In that case, the prosecuters job is to show that he did upload it, and it is the defenses job to show that he did not, somebody else did.
quote: Pedophiles are in the same boat as homosexuals as far as mental disorders go.
quote: Microsoft is in no position to take legal authority to enforce state or federal law by threatening jail time. This person clearly has no idea how the legal system works. In fact, anybody condemning Microsoft or Google for tipping off authorities has no idea how the legal system works.
quote: I think you are the one being an idiot...you think Microsoft's TOS will mean anything in a criminal trial that has the potential to put someone in prison?
quote: "Failing to compare anonymous video/audio fingerprints protects only one group of customers -- copyright pirates"
quote: "Failing to compare anonymous text fingerprints protects only one group of customers -- Terrorist who dare to use flagged words""Failing to compare anonymous state criticism fingerprints protects only one group of customers -- People exercising their right to dissent""Failing to compare anonymous [whatever you send] fingerprints protects only one group of customers -- [whatever group you belong to"
quote: You seriously believe that only media file attachments can have "fingerprints" that are looked for?I can calculate CRCs for the word "bomb" followed by various proper nouns and have that "fingerprint" checked against the content of the email.
quote: That movie was a real bomb.
quote: SunTrust just canceled the accounts of a gun/pawn shop owner because his was a "Prohibited Business Type." Wanna know who prohibited it? Look up "Operation Choke Point." If you can't stop those you politically oppose legally, just influence a bunch of private partners to put them out of business. That's what's going on here.
quote: But what does that have to do with Microsoft?
quote: The core issue here isn't that "people are stupid" as you suggest...
quote: No idea what the "outrage" is all about. If your e-mail account is free - then every e-mail you've sent or read through it from day one is scanned anyway for "contextual advertising", and you openly agreed to that from Day One in the T&C's.
quote: Slashdot users were among those suggesting that child predators be afforded special privacy protections that help hide their crimes.