[FDE] I wish all pedophiles were this stupid

[Allen]

dan at geer.org wrote:
> Allen writes:
> -+-----------
>  | I can't speak for you, but I have on more that one
>  | occasion discovered potentially compromising files
>  | on my computer that I was not even aware I had
>  | downloaded.  Should I be arrested? 
>  | 
> 
> There was already a case in the UK where a
> successful defense was mounted that the owner
> of the computer in question was unable to 
> protect it and, thus, the pictures found on
> it could not be said to have been his by an
> act of volition.
> 
> Ipso facto, I ask in return if we are ready
> to say that the user cannot be accountable
> for that which is on their machine, on the
> grounds of manifest incompetence as the default
> presumption?
> 
> Of course, here in the U.S. the 9th Circuit
> Court of Appeals has ruled that unless the
> prosecution can prove that the child in the
> image is a real child, and not a virtual child,
> then it is free speech or the like.

Hi Dan,

I had forgotten about that 9th Circuit ruling. I remember seeing 
it and thought it a good requirement.

But my questions to you are, even if you are a security expert, 
is it not possible that there might be a hole in your defenses 
that either you are not aware of or you can not prevent? In which 
case does it matter whether you are competent with computer 
security or not?

The other question is a bit snide it is true, but are not all 
pictures stored as bits and bytes virtual by definition? Most 
certainly they are not flesh and blood. With this logic would not 
it require a proven chain of custody from the person who took the 
picture through all that might have touched it at some time and a 
proof that it had never been modified since being created as a 
representation of some reality?

I am amazed at what even a not terribly good computer artist can 
do with grafting images together in a manner that defies most 
scrutiny. Perhaps newer techniques exist that can prove that 
something has never been modified, I'm not sure how it could 
work, but if it could be proven then, maybe one could use an 
image without a true and accurate provenance in a court case.

They make us prove a chain of custody for hard drive images, why 
not the images from a hard drive back to the source as well?

Allen