|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] VoiceNet Rumors?
|
Arthur S. Alexion said:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Monday 09 February 2004 09:15 am, Jon Nelson wrote:
>> This is the only article I could find that included a disposition:
http://www.webmastervault.com/news-aiu-0302.shtml
>> An excerpt from the above page:
>> "BuffNet was charged with a misdemeanor for facilitating child
>> pornography
>> because it allowed access to a bulletin board containing images of a
child
>> pornographic nature. In February, 2001, the company pled guilty and a
judge ordered BuffNet to pay a $5,000.00 fine."
>
> Unfortunately this happens a lot. Law enforcement mechanisms which may
themselves be illegal or unconstitutional are allowed to persist because the
> enforced penalty is cheaper than a defense.
Although I agree with this statement I think it is overly broad in the
context of this discussion. I don't know of too many constitutional
challenges to the possession of child pornography of known child victims.
Once again I must emphasize that none of us know all the facts of this
case.
As far as Buffnet and Dreamscape go, they were told that they had child
pornography on their servers and they were being used as a conduit for
distribution of same. With this knowledge they chose to do nothing and
allow this practice to continue. This is were they crossed the line.
None of these ISP's are required to monitor the content on their servers
nor should they be. They are required to report the presence of child
pornography when they become aware of it.
Now we get into a legal argument. No where in the Federal statute does it
say that they have to remove the content, but since they are aware of the
content on their servers are they now in possession of child pornography?
I think the vast majority of prosecutors would agree that they are and if
they fail to remove it they would be held criminally liable.
>
> While a guilty plea and a payment of a fine does constitute techinical
¨precedent¨, it evolves the expectations of those involved as it
continues,
> and in doing so, lessens the chance that there will be a successful
challenge
> in the future.
>
> It only ends when someone accused can either afford principle or makes a
determination that the cost of defense is a cost effective measure toward
> avoiding future charges.
What would they be challenging? That child pornography is protected free
speech? Assuming that Voicenet knew of the presence of child pornography
on their severs and did nothing about it, why shouldn't they be liable?
If someone reports it to the ISP and they go verify that it is there why
not remove it?
Playing devil's advocate to my own argument, if Voicenet was not aware of
child pornography on their servers and the government just came in seized
their servers, the government is going to have a tough road to hoe. That
is only my opinion as an individual and not nesscarily those of my
employer.
Jon
--
Trooper Jon S. Nelson, Linux Certified Admin., CCNA
Pa. State Police, Bureau of Criminal Investigation
Computer Crimes Unit
Work: 610.344.4471 Cell/Page: 866.284.1603
jonelson@state.pa.us
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|