Shared publicly  - 
Damian Trasler's profile photoLinda Dean's profile photoNobilis Reed's profile photoKeith J Davies's profile photo
Congratulations America! I thought I had heard all the bonkers stuff you could come up with but NO! You hit it out of the park AGAIN!
So not paying a student loan... or ripping a dvd of a movie is worth 7-15 years in jail, but someone who takes advantage of the fact that a CHILD...was MOLESTED....only gets...oh wait THEY DONT GET ANYTHING!!!!
stupid bastards.
Actually, the man's conviction wasn't overturned, and the state is going to pass legislation to close that loophole ASAP, you can bet.

It's a non-story.
right, +Nobilis Reed. I'm mildly -- but only mildly -- surprised by the freak out people are having in the comments.

The judge is there to adjudicate the application of the law. The law was evidently worded such that two of the 130-odd pictures would not be covered by the law, so the judge excluded those two charges from the list. The perp was still found guilty of the remainder.

And legislators are working on getting the law changed so that loophole is closed. I suspect that despite the general reaction, that might not be a great idea -- anyone else stumbled on such images before? Into the cache they go, regardless of whether or not you want to see, or to have seen, them. Deliberately seeking out, that's bad. Accidentally finding? Maybe should be excusable.

As an analogy, if I pick someone's pocket, I have committed theft. If I find a wallet on the sidewalk and pick it up, I have not -- though this presupposes I look for a way to return it to the owner, whether by phoning the owner or turning it in to the police to sort out. If I quietly keep it, that's back to theft.
+Keith J Davies It's been my experience, that those sorts of images don't come up unless you go looking for them... but then I'm a Linux user and I probably have more control over my machine than most people do.
I suspect if a large number of images are found in cache, yeah, he was looking for. If it's only one or two (in which case, why is anyone even looking in the cache?) it's probably not looking for.

I think, from what I've read so far, the judge applied the law as written. The law might be able to use some tuning up. I think that 'accidental viewing' is still a possibility and there should be an exclusion for such cases.

130 saved, 2 in cache... nuh uh.
2 in cache... probably accidental.
130 in cache... might still be accidental (mislabeled gallery?), but check more closely
Of course, that would require that folks are exercising judgement, rather than applying "zero tolerance" policies.

Not exactly popular these days.
Part of why there are professional judges, I guess. I don't have a lot of patience for zero tolerance
as an engineer I do appreciate the value of ease of application... but that should not be an over-arching goal sometimes
Add a comment...