Myself and another solicitor spent a half hour today discussing
charges of possession of child pornography and our feeling that
people were being charged with so many images. This conversation
arose from what a Barrister, John Desmond, has been discussing with
us for over a year now and also a great article recently in the
Inside Times by Chris Saltrese.
There is a general feeling that we have become quite blase about
the numbers of image (certainly not the horror of the images).
Cases involving tens of thousand or even at the extreme hundreds of
thousands of images are appearing before the Courts.
But, really, are the numbers accurate?
An analyst will look at a computer and find the images and then
count them up. They put them in the categories of illegal child
But how many pornographic images did the client
The issues that we were debating today were the effect of
re-directs and tiles. Re-directs are where you go to one site and
it takes you to another one.
People might scoff at that but think about it for a short time.
It happens to us all often. You get trapped in advertising from
news articles or just go to something plain different when you are
trying to click out of an ad. Those are re-directs. Anyone who does
not have them occur does not use the internet much.
One famous re-direct is common and involves you being
rickrolled. This is the bait and switch where you click on a
hyperlink and end up watching the Rick Astley song Never Gonna Give
The other issue is in relation to Tiles , or thumbnails, which
are the little images on a site. Often news sites might have dozens
on a page and obviously many thousands if you access many
Now today by coincidence one of the banner tiles on the Age
Newspaper is re-directing to a turkish pornographic website. So you
click on the Age and you have an image downloaded on your computer.
Not child porn but porn nonetheless. And believe me we checked on a
number of computers with different browsers to make sure it was not
an image cached on one of our computers.
If you see it on your screen it is on your computer –
somewhere. Most of us have no capacity to get rid of images like
And believe me we checked on a number of computers with
different browsers to make sure it was not an image cached on a
If it can happen on a mainstream newspaper with great techie
staff (I base that on the fact I have acted for a couple of their
techie staff who seemed very smart) then when a person is going to
dodgier sites then the chances increase hugely.
Now imagine if, like most pages you go to, there were 30
thumbnails down the bottom. They will be counted in the list of
images when your computer is analysed.
Even if you never scrolled down far enough on your screen to see
the image. It loaded and is sitting on your computer.
I have never seen a report that actually addresses whether the
thumbnails were clicked on and whether the person was there on a
Maybe the reports are doing this and we are not realizing. The
programs that Police use to determine possession of child
pornography collate the images and then humans decide which
category they are in. Often you just deal with a representative
sample of the material. But when you see them they come as standard
little images. Not showing you page size and other issues. Maybe
Access data type software is producing reports about these issues
and we are not seeing them.
A client might have accessed a site, be it porn or not and there
are 50 thumbnail images on the one page they accessed. The client
may not even have seen them.
They are down the bottom of the page. To me this really starts
to explain the extraordinary number of images people are regularly
being sentenced for.
If you are re-directed to a site are you responsible for what
you see there? Did you attempt to possess that unknown image on a
site you were not going to? Obviously not.
To suggest otherwise is absurd.
What about images that you do not look at and never click on?
Surely the same logic applies.
I hope I am wrong about this and am happy to have someone set me
right. But just as the internet has created a flood of porn so too
it may have led us to losing sight of reality when dealing with
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
ASIC chairman confirmed that ASIC will continue its tough stance against suspected insider trading.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).