pseudo-photographs
Gaz
been charged with possessing pseudo-photographs of child pornography.
What on earth is a pseudo-photograph?
Most pornogrphy I have seen tries to make the adults look as young as
possible (are we not genetically condtioned to desire a woman in her prime
child baring age, of 15 to 19?), even though the girls are usually old hags
who have been round the block before, they are often presented as sweet
school girls with pigtails, losing their virginity.
So again, what is a pseudo-photograph, is it a photo of an adult presented
to look like a child?
Gaz
--
"Threats of deportation were made by Labour supporters to first generation
migrants if they did not sign postal vote papers to vote Labour. Postal
voters were pressurised by Labour Party candidates and agents into casting
their vote for the Labour slate whilst the Labour Party agents stood over
the voter watching them cast their vote"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Part of a report by the Lib Dems to The Electoral Commission re: the
Birmingham City Council Elections in June.
Bystander
> What on earth is a pseudo-photograph?
It's a computerised image that looks like a photograph.
Gaz
"Bystander" <marl...@fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:2ps00fF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>> What on earth is a pseudo-photograph?
>
> It's a computerised image that looks like a photograph.
You mean all that Japanese stuff, the manga style etc, which usually
involves some very busty looking young girl, taking over the world with an
aggressive vagina, these are against the law?
Gaz
The Todal
"Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote in message news:2ps06cF...@uni-berlin.de...
Only if the picture could be mistaken for a real person. The idea is to make
indecent photographs of children illegal, and in case people claim that the
photograph is not of a real child but digitally altered in some way, to call
such a thing a pseudo-photograph and make it illegal.
PeteM
>Read a story in my local rag, about a couple of twenty year olds who have
>been charged with possessing pseudo-photographs of child pornography.
>
>What on earth is a pseudo-photograph?
>Most pornogrphy I have seen tries to make the adults look as young as
>possible (are we not genetically condtioned to desire a woman in her prime
>child baring age, of 15 to 19?), even though the girls are usually old hags
>who have been round the block before, they are often presented as sweet
>school girls with pigtails, losing their virginity.
>
>So again, what is a pseudo-photograph, is it a photo of an adult presented
>to look like a child?
The word has various usages, but in law it means an image that looks
like (but is not) a photograph of a real event that actually occurred.
These days, this usually means an edited digital image, but it doesn't
have to; it could mean an ultra realistic painting, or a traditional
printed photo that has been cut and pasted in some way.
--
PeteM
Gaz
"PeteM" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:OOOXiJA8...@privacy.net...
If it was anything other then child pornography, could this kind of thing be
sucessfully used in a prosecution?
Maybe the miscreants deserve to go to jail, I dont know the details, but to
go to jail for something that has been edited to look like something else
seems a bit rough.......
Again this whole issue of 'making' indecent images. It seems to ahve a
completley different meaning to what the average individual would assum it
meant.
If i had heard someone was charged with 'making' indecent images, i would
have assumed they had actually made, eg. took the photographs of the child,
not just downloaded from a server. I am not trying to belittle the offense
of downloading kiddie porn, but it is not, and i repeat not the same as
actually creating it.....
Was it an intention when the law was written about images, that to download
is to 'make', or is it a case of technology overtaking the law, and the
criminal justice system using an outdated law to get a higher charge?
Gaz
> --
> PeteM
The Todal
Yes. The learned judges pondered this sort of point in the case of DPP v
Atkins http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/302.html and you
hardly know whether to laugh or to cry at the fact that a poor chap was
actually prosecuted for having such a thing in his possession.
[quote]
The main photograph is of a girl aged perhaps 10 in a gymnastic outfit
standing with her arms upstretched facing the camera. The second photograph
(a small piece plainly cut from a larger photograph) is of the naked
abdomen, genital area and upper thighs of a girl or young woman. A corner of
the second photograph has been affixed to the main photograph by sellotape
so that, as if on a hinge, it can either be turned away from the clothed
girl or superimposed over the lower section of the girl's outfit.
The case for the prosecution below is summarised in the case stated as
follows:
"The item was a photograph. It is made up of two separate items and was two
photographs put together. The act of putting them together did not destroy
the fact that it was a photograph. ... The question was 悲oes the
sellotaping of two photographs destroy the fact that it was a photograph'"
The case for the defence was that:
"The item made up of two photographs sellotaped together did not appear to
be a photograph. On a common-sense interpretation, the item could not be an
item. It is a collage, two pictures stuck together. ... As a matter of law
the item does not appear to be a photograph and is not a photograph. If it
was photocopied or photographed it may have been an image."
The Justices' central conclusion was as follows:
"The [exhibit] made up of two photographs sellotaped together appears to be
a photograph. We accepted the respondent's contention that two photographs
sellotaped together does not destroy the fact that it is a photograph. Both
parts of the photograph are in proportion. The image is not distorted. We
did not accept the defence contention that two photographs sellotaped
together is a collage, not a photograph. It does not matter how it is
produced because of the words 惱r otherwise howsoever'."
[snip]
The question is not whether the exhibit is "a product of photography" or
"photographic in nature". Rather it is whether the exhibit is "an image ...
which appears to be a photograph".
In my judgment Mr Blair's argument is clearly correct. The Justices' own
conclusion that "two photographs sellotaped together appears to be a
photograph" seems to me self-contradictory.
I recognise, of course, that were the exhibit itself to be photocopied the
result could well be said to constitute a pseudo-photograph. (The mere fact
that in this particular case it would plainly appear not to be a genuine
photograph - there being several features of this combination of images
which give the lie to that - would not be inconsistent with such a
conclusion - see particularly s.7(8).) That, however, cannot decide this
appeal. In my judgment an image made by an exhibit which obviously consists,
as this one does, of parts of two different photographs sellotaped together
cannot be said to appear to be "a photograph". I would accordingly answer
the question posed in the case stated: Yes, the Justices were wrong in law.
[unquote]
PeteM
>
>"PeteM" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:OOOXiJA8...@privacy.net...
>> Gaz <gaz...@msn.com> posted
>>>Read a story in my local rag, about a couple of twenty year olds who have
>>>been charged with possessing pseudo-photographs of child pornography.
>>>
>>>What on earth is a pseudo-photograph?
>>>Most pornogrphy I have seen tries to make the adults look as young as
>>>possible (are we not genetically condtioned to desire a woman in her prime
>>>child baring age, of 15 to 19?), even though the girls are usually old
>>>hags
>>>who have been round the block before, they are often presented as sweet
>>>school girls with pigtails, losing their virginity.
>>>
>>>So again, what is a pseudo-photograph, is it a photo of an adult presented
>>>to look like a child?
>>
>> The word has various usages, but in law it means an image that looks like
>> (but is not) a photograph of a real event that actually occurred.
>>
>> These days, this usually means an edited digital image, but it doesn't
>> have to; it could mean an ultra realistic painting, or a traditional
>> printed photo that has been cut and pasted in some way.
>
>If it was anything other then child pornography, could this kind of thing be
>sucessfully used in a prosecution?
It is not illegal to *possess* any image other than an indecent picture
of a child or what appears to be a child, so in that sense, no.
However, obviously such an image could be evidence in some other type of
prosecution (eg distribution of obscene material under OPA).
>
>Maybe the miscreants deserve to go to jail, I dont know the details, but to
>go to jail for something that has been edited to look like something else
>seems a bit rough.......
Don't tell us, tell the Home Office. They will reply that every child
porn image is an image of a crime scene. This is a direct lie, but
naturally this doesn't stop them repeating it at every possible
opportunity.
>
>Again this whole issue of 'making' indecent images. It seems to ahve a
>completley different meaning to what the average individual would assum it
>meant.
Yep. But don't tell us, tell the Home Office, the CPS and the police.
All of them deliberately conspired to pervert the will of Parliament, by
persuading the courts that "making" should be assigned a meaning that
legislators clearly never intended it to bear.
>
>If i had heard someone was charged with 'making' indecent images, i would
>have assumed they had actually made, eg. took the photographs of the child,
>not just downloaded from a server. I am not trying to belittle the offense
>of downloading kiddie porn, but it is not, and i repeat not the same as
>actually creating it.....
>
>Was it an intention when the law was written about images, that to download
>is to 'make', or is it a case of technology overtaking the law, and the
>criminal justice system using an outdated law to get a higher charge?
The latter is exactly correct, and has been admitted as such by a former
police officer of my acquaintance.
--
PeteM
nospam
>Was it an intention when the law was written about images, that to download
>is to 'make', or is it a case of technology overtaking the law, and the
>criminal justice system using an outdated law to get a higher charge?
Not only a higher charge, the same image can be used to charge thousands of
people. Images from one 'crime scene' would be sufficient to lock up the
entire population - nice one.
If downloading an image is considered to be making it is the downloader
then entitled to copyright his creation?
Derek *
In layman's terms, can I take it he got off?
So it appears that if this saddo had been found in possession of the
two photographs in seperate pockets he would have been "asbestos".
Indeed if he had the pictures in two consecutive pages in a photo
album with transparent pages so that the two images could be
superimposed (achieveing the same effect) he would still have been
"asbestos".
It would appear that nowadays the simple act of sticking two bits of
perfectly legal photographs together has the potential of being a
criminal offence carrying a prison sentence and enrolment in the
S.O.R.
Reading that judgement above ISTM that a better quality attempt, (say
with well matched photo originals laminated together) most likely
would have resulted in a sustainable conviction.
DG
Journalist-North
"Derek *" <d...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h1ljj0tsct02578h7...@4ax.com...
>
(snip
>
(snip)
>
> Reading that judgement above ISTM that a better quality attempt, (say
> with well matched photo originals laminated together) most likely
> would have resulted in a sustainable conviction.
>
> DG
------------
Better quality [NON-photographic] "ARTWORK" and he would have been asbestos
as well.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 (the PCA) and s.160 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 (the CJA) - NEITHER ONE - addresses any other kind of image
than a "photograph" or "pseudo-photograph." As a result, sketches, etchings,
drawings, paintings, renderings, sculpture, descriptive writings, ect, ect,
are immune from being judged on the basis of "indecency" and may only raise
to a criminal level if they are obscene... and that is substantially harder
to prove under the Obscene Publications Act (OPA). Thus we are given the
likes of Jake and Dino Chapman's work, obviously disturbing and just as
obviously indecent in the mind of any "reasonable person" but not judged to
reach the level of obscenity, consisting of a number of patently child
mannequins, among other similar work they have done, nude, with penis noses
and vagina mouths, proudly displayed in public for all to see, indeed
applauded as a true work of genius art, at the Saatchi.
It is, it seems, only the middle and lower classes that are unduly penalised
under the PCA and CJA because they can not afford real "art" but only the
art of the masses - photography. That is obvious to all and sundry as soon
as you become aware that obscenity is well defined in law but indecency, as
called out in the PCA and CJA, is NOT defined or placed within determinable
boundaries, but is left to the whim of individual judges in individual
cases. Don't worry, we are told, they know it when they see it.
Legal maxim: "The law should be written is such a way as those bound by it
know the limits beyond which they must not go." The PCA and s:160 of the CJA
fail miserably in that respect.
Journalist
Cynic
wrote:
>Reading that judgement above ISTM that a better quality attempt, (say
>with well matched photo originals laminated together) most likely
>would have resulted in a sustainable conviction.
It is 100% certain that it would. Convictins have occured when the
image in question showed an image of a girl in a swimming costume
placed next to an image of a naked adult man, and stored as a single
file. The two images were very obviously different photographs.
--
Cynic
PeteM
>
>It is, it seems, only the middle and lower classes that are unduly penalised
>under the PCA and CJA because they can not afford real "art" but only the
>art of the masses - photography. That is obvious to all and sundry as soon
>as you become aware that obscenity is well defined in law but indecency, as
>called out in the PCA and CJA, is NOT defined or placed within determinable
>boundaries, but is left to the whim of individual judges in individual
>cases. Don't worry, we are told, they know it when they see it.
Can't agree with that. The OPA test is that material must "deprave or
corrupt". I don't accept that as a meaningful criterion any more than
"indecent" is.
If I were on a jury trying either crime, I always would automatically
acquit, since the absence of any operational meaning of the terms
"deprave" or "indecent" means there would always be a reasonable doubt
about whether the material met either criterion.
--
PeteM
Journalist-North
>> Journalist-North <journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted
(snip)
>> Don't worry, we are told, they know it when they see it.
------
>
> Can't agree with that. The OPA test is that material must "deprave or
> corrupt". I don't accept that as a meaningful criterion any more than
> "indecent" is.
>
> If I were on a jury trying either crime, I always would automatically
> acquit, since the absence of any operational meaning of the terms
> "deprave" or "indecent" means there would always be a reasonable doubt
> about whether the material met either criterion.
>
> PeteM
---------
The difference, as I see it, is that under the OPA there must be some proof
offered by the CPS that, on the whole, there is an adverse "effect" (tends
to deprave or corrupt) but with the PCA and s:160 only an assertion that it
"is" (indecent, but with NO definition of the term) whether there is an
adverse societal effect or not. That is the dangerous difference.
In PCA and s:160 cases I am always struck by the interpretative phrase that
"...indecency is an issue of fact best left to a jury..." whereupon the case
then proceeds to be heard (many times) by a magistrate/judge sitting alone.
For the defendant the choice is stark... force a jury trial and be exposed
to significantly higher penalties if found guilty.
There is no discernable benchmark on indecency. Thus someone may be found
not guilty in London in one instance, but guilty in some small court in
Cumbria in a parallel case involving the exact same image. You might openly
buy some books with [to say the least] "stark" images of children in London
but find yourself banged up for possession of the same book in Teeside. You
can find some materials in libraries that, if you possess it in you home or
on your computer, will get you banged up as well.
THAT is the justice of a riverboat gambler and a wild west frontier judge...
e.g. "A fair and impartial trial will commence at 10 o'clock; the hanging
will be held promptly at noon."
I am inclined to agree with you that in the great majority of cases my
inclination would be to find a defendant not guilty unless the evidence was
SO blatant and explicit that there could be no other rational finding than
one of guilty.
Journalist
Derek *
>------------
>
>Better quality [NON-photographic] "ARTWORK" and he would have been asbestos
>as well.
>
>The Protection of Children Act 1978 (the PCA) and s.160 of the Criminal
>Justice Act 1988 (the CJA) - NEITHER ONE - addresses any other kind of image
>than a "photograph" or "pseudo-photograph." As a result, sketches, etchings,
>drawings, paintings, renderings, sculpture, descriptive writings, ect, ect,
>are immune from being judged on the basis of "indecency" and may only raise
>to a criminal level if they are obscene... and that is substantially harder
>to prove under the Obscene Publications Act (OPA). Thus we are given the
>likes of Jake and Dino Chapman's work, obviously disturbing and just as
>obviously indecent in the mind of any "reasonable person" but not judged to
>reach the level of obscenity, consisting of a number of patently child
>mannequins, among other similar work they have done, nude,
Funny you should mention that.
Earlier this year my 17 YO daughter studying A level Art spent a
small fortune on her own wieght of some crud called "Mod-Roc" (Plaster
casting bandage material, not only expensive as hell but difficult to
source, an' all). Not being artists ourselves we paid little heed
until returning from a business trip we found she'd had one of her 17
YO female school friends round and had indeed made a life size
mannequin of her torso. I started to reckon If you could get 9 months
for a postage stamp size thumbnail what might the tariff be for
"possessing" this little lot.
In the fullness of time the work was finished and taken to school and
put on public display and an A level in art was forthcoming.
From what you say we were "asbestos" but it's a good job she didn't
take photography.
>with penis noses
>and vagina mouths, proudly displayed in public for all to see, indeed
>applauded as a true work of genius art, at the Saatchi.
>
>It is, it seems, only the middle and lower classes that are unduly penalised
>under the PCA and CJA because they can not afford real "art" but only the
>art of the masses - photography. That is obvious to all and sundry as soon
>as you become aware that obscenity is well defined in law but indecency, as
>called out in the PCA and CJA, is NOT defined or placed within determinable
>boundaries, but is left to the whim of individual judges in individual
>cases. Don't worry, we are told, they know it when they see it.
>
I wonder what they would have made of some "Art" I saw whilst working
in 1973 in a College in York which ran an art gallery in a disused
chapel. The "Art" consisted of colour slides of a naked young "Model"
spreadeagled (ITIM "spreadlegged") in the branches of a tree who had
balls of string shoved up her vagina, the strngs (about a dozen of
them) ran out to the tips of the branches. The performance had to be
accompanied by rock music played "Very Loudly".
Sadly money was the downfall of it all. The director said he could
maybe get about 10 quid in funding for a live performance/photo
session to be enacted in York, the artist said the model alone would
want 15 quid and he'd want his cut.
That was the end of it. :(
DG
Journalist-North
>> ...reach the level of obscenity, consisting of a number of patently child
>>mannequins, among other similar work they have done, nude,...
>
> Funny you should mention that.
>
> Earlier this year my 17 YO daughter studying A level Art spent a
> small fortune on her own wieght of some crud called "Mod-Roc" (Plaster
> casting bandage material, not only expensive as hell but difficult to
> source, an' all). Not being artists ourselves we paid little heed
> until returning from a business trip we found she'd had one of her 17
> YO female school friends round and had indeed made a life size
> mannequin of her torso. I started to reckon If you could get 9 months
> for a postage stamp size thumbnail what might the tariff be for
> "possessing" this little lot.
>
> In the fullness of time the work was finished and taken to school and
> put on public display and an A level in art was forthcoming.
>
> From what you say we were "asbestos" but it's a good job she didn't
> take photography.
+++ Exactly... and it could have been worse. Before Dec 2003 the age that
was of concern to the PCA and CJA was (under) 16 - the Sexual Offences Act
of 2003 raised that by reference to the other two acts to (under) 18.
Thereafter any photographic images would, of course, have to be found
indecent, but though not all nudity is "indecent" almost all nudity is
"suspect" when it comes to the PCA and s:160 of the CJA.
Bizarre as it sounds, you could get, and probably still can, an under age
model to strip nude and draw or paint their picture - you just can't
photograph them.
(snip)
>
> I wonder what they would have made of some "Art" I saw whilst working
> in 1973 in a College in York which ran an art gallery in a disused
> chapel. The "Art" consisted of colour slides of a naked young "Model"
> spreadeagled (ITIM "spreadlegged") in the branches of a tree who had
> balls of string shoved up her vagina, the strngs (about a dozen of
> them) ran out to the tips of the branches. The performance had to be
> accompanied by rock music played "Very Loudly".
>
> Sadly money was the downfall of it all. The director said he could
> maybe get about 10 quid in funding for a live performance/photo
> session to be enacted in York, the artist said the model alone would
> want 15 quid and he'd want his cut.
>
> That was the end of it. :(
>
> DG
+++ You know that may NOT actually be the end of it. IF that model was over
16 at the time the images would (probably) have been quite legal. Now it
would be unlawful merely to possess the EXACT same images if she was, at the
time they were made, over 16 but under 18. The change in the law on age
(SOA2003) made no provision for pre-existing work - if it was photography
and she was under 18 when it was made, even if the work is 20 - 30 - or
100 - years old, they are now illegal IF there is a possibility that they
would be found to also be indecent (and from your description there is every
possibility of that.)
P.S. Next time your daughter gets the urge to mould a life model tell her to
check out a product called (generic name) "alginate" rather then the plaster
method. Cleaner (and you don't have to use a release agent on the skin),
easier and does not generate heat as plaster does... not to mention also
cheaper and easier to come by in the art supply shops:
http://www.artmolds.com/index.cfm?u_cat=26
Journalist
Alan G
<journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
snip
>+++ You know that may NOT actually be the end of it. IF that model was over
>16 at the time the images would (probably) have been quite legal. Now it
>would be unlawful merely to possess the EXACT same images if she was, at the
>time they were made, over 16 but under 18. The change in the law on age
>(SOA2003) made no provision for pre-existing work - if it was photography
>and she was under 18 when it was made, even if the work is 20 - 30 - or
>100 - years old, they are now illegal IF there is a possibility that they
>would be found to also be indecent (and from your description there is every
>possibility of that.)
There is provision in law to exempt antiques from current bans on
possession of what the government has deemed to be illegal so hundred
year old images may come under that exemption too. I don't know for
sure IANAL.
Robbie
>Date: 06/09/2004 12:06 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <ljfoj0d6638rmh3i1...@4ax.com>
>
>On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:26:56 GMT, "Journalist-North"
><journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>snip
>>+++ You know that may NOT actually be the end of it. IF that model was over
>>16 at the time the images would (probably) have been quite legal. Now it
>>would be unlawful merely to possess the EXACT same images if she was, at the
>
>>time they were made, over 16 but under 18. The change in the law on age
>>(SOA2003) made no provision for pre-existing work - if it was photography
>>and she was under 18 when it was made, even if the work is 20 - 30 - or
>>100 - years old, they are now illegal IF there is a possibility that they
>>would be found to also be indecent (and from your description there is every
>
>>possibility of that.)
>
>There is provision in law to exempt antiques from current bans on
>possession of what the government has deemed to be illegal so hundred
>year old images may come under that exemption too. I don't know for
>sure IANAL.
What about the archives of papers like the Sun and Daily Sport? They must
contain pictures of topless 16 year olds (Sam Fox and Lyndsey Dawn McKenzie
respectively)? Will the police be raiding their premises to arrest the owners I
wonder?
Alan G
We can but hope :)
Journalist-North
"Alan G" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ljfoj0d6638rmh3i1...@4ax.com...
>
> There is provision in law to exempt antiques from current bans on
> possession of what the government has deemed to be illegal so hundred
> year old images may come under that exemption too. I don't know for
> sure IANAL.
>
----------
This question was SPECIFICALLY debated when the PCA was enacted and the lack
of any such exemption on ("indecent" photographic) images of children made
prior to the PCA is explicit by it absence. No other law addresses this
specific matter.
There is also NO exception for prior work (in photographs) even if they were
legally made after the PCA (over 16 but under 18) but before the age change
in the SOA2003, and that have now been deemed illegal by reason of the age
change from 16 to 18.
Journalist
Journalist-North
"Robbie" <ngrob...@aol.comehome> wrote in message
news:20040906080945...@mb-m15.aol.com...
(snip)
>
> What about the archives of papers like the Sun and Daily Sport? They must
> contain pictures of topless 16 year olds (Sam Fox and Lyndsey Dawn
> McKenzie
> respectively)? Will the police be raiding their premises to arrest the
> owners I
> wonder?
Unlikely, as most are merely topless and not, as such, inherently
"indecent". The law seems to consider, for example, that the female breast
is NOT a sex organ and thus the images in the Sport, et al, or family snaps
of your 5- year-old at the beach do not raise to a level of illegality,
though I doubt those papers will continue shooting models under 18 if only
because of legal doubt on the commercial exploitation of the images, or
parents shooting such images if only because of the legal doubt they raise
vis a vis the content.
Interestingly, images, and in particular a "collection" of images, (of
children, under 18) may be found to be "indecent" without any nudity. It is
entirely possible to wind up on the sex offenders register for possession of
a collection of work consisting of, for example, photos or clippings of
images of kids in underwear or swimsuits - even though they may have been
entirely OK if found individually in, say, catalogues. Here, the issue comes
very close to a mere "thought crime" to possess such a collection. The
descriptive term applied is that such a collection is "indigitave".
Indigative, it is presumed, of some kind of prurient interest in children.
An example of this can be found in one well and hysterically publicised
case, that I will not name, that did not attract charges but did attract a
formal investigation. Parent has shot a roll of film of daughter in the
bath. It was not a single image, or even only a few frames on the roll, but
the whole roll of film. That, in itself, raised the spectre of illegality
and was duly reported by the overly cautious photo lab to the police. The
police and CPS, not to mention the photo lab, could not seem to understand
that photographers actually did such things (shot whole rolls of film at
once of the same subject) as a matter of routine. The press, or at least
some of them who should have known better, went on a feeding frenzy.
Journalist
Michael Ross
<journali...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Derek *" <d...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:d1bkj05p7vcbu8bti...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> From what you say we were "asbestos" but it's a good job she didn't
>> take photography.
>
>+++ Exactly... and it could have been worse.
It could have been much worse. There was a preposterous case here in
the USA recently - perhaps it has already been discussed here?. A
teenage girl (can't remember her precise age - 17? 15?) was arrested
and charged with making, possessing, and distributing kiddie porn,
and sexual assault on a minor.
The images in question were of herself, made by herself, with her
webcam. The 'sexual assault' charge came because some of the images
showed her masturbating - presumably for the benefit of some
cyber-boyfriend.
In other words, she was charged with sexually assaulting herself... as
a minor, she couldn't 'consent' to the 'assault', however a minor
*can* be held criminally liable for committing a sexual assault. So
according to the law, her age makes her both the 'victim' and the
'criminal'.
Doubtless, if she was released on bail, a bail condition would be to
'have no contact with the victim'. !!!!!
Whilst her behaviour might be described as 'foolish', it isn't exactly
rocket science to identify the *real* 'victim' and 'criminals' in this
case!
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
The Farmer Returns
"Michael Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:5mprj016srgv0ejab...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> In other words, she was charged with sexually assaulting herself... as
> a minor, she couldn't 'consent' to the 'assault', however a minor
> *can* be held criminally liable for committing a sexual assault. So
> according to the law, her age makes her both the 'victim' and the
> 'criminal'.
<snip>
> Whilst her behaviour might be described as 'foolish', it isn't exactly
> rocket science to identify the *real* 'victim' and 'criminals' in this
> case!
Might not be rocket science - but it's beyond me!
F A
Clough
wrote:
>In other words, she was charged with sexually assaulting herself... as
>a minor, she couldn't 'consent' to the 'assault', however a minor
>*can* be held criminally liable for committing a sexual assault. So
>according to the law, her age makes her both the 'victim' and the
>'criminal'.
That is a very good idea. It might be possible under English law, too.
A person in their early teens cannot consent to sex, but they can be
held criminally responsible for their actions. I'm sure the CPS could
charge a 14 year old with sexually assaulting a minor if he/she is
caught masturbating. It could yield a prison sentence and 10 years on
the sexual offenders register.
The CPS should wake up to this one, it's a rich vein of untapped
crime.
Clough
The Farmer Returns
"Clough" <in...@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:5fvrj0l7503v34cnt...@4ax.com...
> The CPS should wake up to this one, it's a rich vein of untapped
> crime.
Brilliant!
We can lock all the kids up on a charge of being wankers!!!!!!!
F A
Cynic
wrote:
>In other words, she was charged with sexually assaulting herself... as
>a minor, she couldn't 'consent' to the 'assault', however a minor
>*can* be held criminally liable for committing a sexual assault. So
>according to the law, her age makes her both the 'victim' and the
>'criminal'.
I believe there is case law in the UK (can't quote it) that has
decided that it is not possible for a person to commit criminal
assault (indecent or otherwise) on themself. So she would be safe
from that charge in the UK, but could still be convicted of
distributing indecent images of a child.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<oo...@arrrr.com> wrote:
>> Whilst her behaviour might be described as 'foolish', it isn't exactly
>> rocket science to identify the *real* 'victim' and 'criminals' in this
>> case!
>
>Might not be rocket science - but it's beyond me!
In this case it is the authorities who are guilty of abusing a child.
--
Cynic
bigbrian
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:02:59 -0400, Michael Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In other words, she was charged with sexually assaulting herself... as
>>a minor, she couldn't 'consent' to the 'assault', however a minor
>>*can* be held criminally liable for committing a sexual assault. So
>>according to the law, her age makes her both the 'victim' and the
>>'criminal'.
>
>I believe there is case law in the UK (can't quote it) that has
>decided that it is not possible for a person to commit criminal
>assault (indecent or otherwise) on themself.
IIRC, (and its some years now since the case, so I may be mistaken)
one of the accused in the Spanner case (R v Brown) was indeed
convicted of an assault on himself
Brian
Rhoy the Bhoy
Were these affirmed on appeal ? If so, can you point to an on-line
source of the appeal decision(s) ?
Cynic
<callasbe...@tinet.ie> wrote:
>>> Reading that judgement above ISTM that a better quality attempt,
>>> (say with well matched photo originals laminated together) most
>>> likely would have resulted in a sustainable conviction.
>>
>> It is 100% certain that it would. Convictins have occured when the
>> image in question showed an image of a girl in a swimming costume
>> placed next to an image of a naked adult man, and stored as a single
>> file. The two images were very obviously different photographs.
>
>Were these affirmed on appeal ? If so, can you point to an on-line
>source of the appeal decision(s) ?
It was not appealed. The image was one of several, all judged to be
indecent. That particular image was a very crude "cut and paste" (I
was shown it) - very obviously two different photographs. I was
informed that some of the other images were without question indecent
(I did not see them, but they were described to me), so it would be
hardly worth it for the defendant to have gone to appeal over that
particular one.
Had the defendant been found with only that one image on his computer,
perhaps the jury would have decided differently, but they are
*supposed* to judge each image separately, and they did find it to be
indecent (and thus illegal).
--
Cynic
Jeremy Barker
"Making" is not the same as "creating". If you download something you
necessarily make the copy and that copy clearly has been made. That
is the "making" which is the offence. Concepts from copyright law are
helpful here.
> Was it an intention when the law was written about images, that to download
> is to 'make', or is it a case of technology overtaking the law, and the
> criminal justice system using an outdated law to get a higher charge?
What the precise intention was really is irrelevant. What matters is
that when a copy is made more images exist than existed previously so
the additional ones must have been made. Although - as I mention
above - concepts from copyright law help here, it really is not
stretching anything and certainly not stretching words as far as some
other judicial rulings have stretched other words.
I would suggest if Parliament had intended that copying should not be
making it would have been necessary to spell that out.
jb
Gaz
"Jeremy Barker" <jeremy...@email.com> wrote in message
news:5b86b9ee.0409...@posting.google.com...
> "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:<2ptghqF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "PeteM" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:OOOXiJA8...@privacy.net...
>
> necessarily make the copy and that copy clearly has been made. That
> is the "making" which is the offence. Concepts from copyright law are
> helpful here.
Making
i)To cause to exist or happen; bring about; create:
>> Was it an intention when the law was written about images, that to
>> download
>> is to 'make', or is it a case of technology overtaking the law, and the
>> criminal justice system using an outdated law to get a higher charge?
>
> What the precise intention was really is irrelevant.
Not really, the law is outdated, and if passed today would be more specific,
to download is not to create. Technology has completely overtook the law.
What matters is
> that when a copy is made more images exist than existed previously so
> the additional ones must have been made.
The nature of the internet, the way browsers work, make the enforcement
absurd, if it was for anything less emotional then child pornography.
.
>
> I would suggest if Parliament had intended that copying should not be
> making it would have been necessary to spell that out.
But, by viewing, on the internet you have copied, but not by the measure
that was intended when the law was framed.
AFAIK different but similar offenses exist for the 'possesion' of this
material, and for the 'making' and for the 'distribution'. Each one is
different in its severity.
In the same way it is different to half 1/2ounce of pot, and to be growing
six pot plants in your loft, with the intention of supplying.. They have
different severities, because they are wholly different.
In a none digital world (as it was when the law was passed), to have a
magazine which contained images of child pornogrpahy was not classed the
same, as possesing a printing press and making copies of exisiting ones for
distribution, and different again to actually making original photographs of
abuse.
This distinction is deliberatly been subverted by the police and CPS in
order to gain convictions of higher offenses then that of possesing the
obscene material.
Gaz
> jb
Derek *
On 12 Sep 2004 06:15:53 -0700, jeremy...@email.com (Jeremy Barker)
wrote:
>>
>> If i had heard someone was charged with 'making' indecent images, i would
>> have assumed they had actually made, eg. took the photographs of the child,
>> not just downloaded from a server. I am not trying to belittle the offense
>> of downloading kiddie porn, but it is not, and i repeat not the same as
>> actually creating it.....
>
>"Making" is not the same as "creating".
It's close.
Definitions
make
verb made, making
1. To form, create, manufacture or produce something by mixing,
combining or shaping materials.
Example: make the tea
Example: made me a cake
Thesaurus: manufacture, construct, produce, build,
assemble, compose, fabricate, create, fashion, forge, mould, conceive;
Antonym: dismantle.
Definitions
create
verb created, creating
1. To form or produce from nothing.
Example: create the universe
2. To bring into existence; to introduce.
Example: create a system
Thesaurus: produce, engender, beget, generate, originate,
initiate, start, develop, spawn, mother, father, formulate, invent;
Antonym: destroy.
I would say that taking a photograph with a camera "Creates" it, and
the act of printing it out on a photoprinter or a computer printer
"Makes" a photograph. In a film camera a negative image exists which
might be regarded as a photograph in itself.
I would say that printing an image file on a printer (an act of
combining paper and inks) is "Making" a photograph.
I would say that copying a picture file from a server is "Making" a
copy of the file not "Making" a photograph.
> If you download something you
>necessarily make the copy and that copy clearly has been made. That
>is the "making" which is the offence.
The offence is "Making a indecent photograph...".
>Concepts from copyright law are helpful here.
Dunno about that. I suspect that copyright can be vested in a file
per-se.
[snip]
>I would suggest if Parliament had intended that copying should not be
>making it would have been necessary to spell that out.
>
This is a *Law* we are talking about. The Law defines activities which
*are* criminal offences, we have not quite got to the stage where all
activities are illegal by default and the law specifies what it is
legal to do.
The offence is "Making a indecent photograph..."
Copying a file is copying a file. Not "Making a photograph".
Surely the question is "What did our legislators have in mind when
they passed the law" ?
DG
PeteM
>
>"Making" is not the same as "creating".
"Make" has many meanings. Some senses of "making" certainly mean
"creating".
>If you download something you
>necessarily make the copy and that copy clearly has been made. That
>is the "making" which is the offence. Concepts from copyright law are
>helpful here.
I don't see why. Whichever sense (if any) the word "make" is used in
copyright law, is not necessarily the same sense in which it is used in
CJA 1994..
>
>> Was it an intention when the law was written about images, that to download
>> is to 'make', or is it a case of technology overtaking the law, and the
>> criminal justice system using an outdated law to get a higher charge?
>
>What the precise intention was really is irrelevant.
Even the courts don't think that. They decided that, if the accused
didn't intentionally "make" the copy - i.e if his browser copied it
automatically into his cache - then it doesn't count as "making",
although the CPS tried to persuade them that it was.
>What matters is
>that when a copy is made more images exist than existed previously so
>the additional ones must have been made. Although - as I mention
>above - concepts from copyright law help here, it really is not
>stretching anything and certainly not stretching words as far as some
>other judicial rulings have stretched other words.
>
>I would suggest if Parliament had intended that copying should not be
>making it would have been necessary to spell that out.
Seems the other way round to me: if they'd meant to criminalise copying,
they could have said so.
Suppose you've drawn, on your computer, a map of Canary Wharf with a
cross at a certain point marked "Place Bomb Here". Special Branch raids
you, seizes your computer, finds the drawing, prints it out. In court,
the prosecutor shows you the print-out and says, "Did you make that?"
According to R v Atkins, you can truthfully reply, No of course not.
After all, what he is showing you is a *copy* of the plan. The police
made that, not you.
Is that really what the legislators intended? I don't think so.
--
PeteM
Cynic
wrote:
>"Making" is not the same as "creating". If you download something you
>necessarily make the copy and that copy clearly has been made. That
>is the "making" which is the offence. Concepts from copyright law are
>helpful here.
>
>> Was it an intention when the law was written about images, that to download
>> is to 'make', or is it a case of technology overtaking the law, and the
>> criminal justice system using an outdated law to get a higher charge?
>
>What the precise intention was really is irrelevant.
What?! You honestly believe that the intention of the lawmakers is
irrelevant when considering how to interpret a law?
>I would suggest if Parliament had intended that copying should not be
>making it would have been necessary to spell that out.
When the law was made, such things as downloading dat from the
Internet onto a hard disk drive was not remotely considered. "Making"
was intended to cover the act of a person who made copies of a
photograph in a darkroom or on a printing press. Something that is
very close to mass distribution.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>What the precise intention was really is irrelevant. What matters is
>that when a copy is made more images exist than existed previously so
>the additional ones must have been made. Although - as I mention
>above - concepts from copyright law help here, it really is not
>stretching anything and certainly not stretching words as far as some
>other judicial rulings have stretched other words.
To make another reply to this post. So you are saying that every time
you browse a web site you are guilty of infringing the copyright of
any material on that web site.
It is a fact that the contents of any web site you visit are
downloaded onto your HDD and thus a copy is made.
Perhaps someone should sue a person for breach of copyright for
browsing his web site and see whether the court *in that case* decides
that downloading an image amounts to "making".
--
Cynic
Michael Ross
wrote:
>To make another reply to this post. So you are saying that every time
>you browse a web site you are guilty of infringing the copyright of
>any material on that web site.
>
>It is a fact that the contents of any web site you visit are
>downloaded onto your HDD and thus a copy is made.
Yes. And a second copy is made when the contents are *copied* from
disk to RAM to be displayed. And a third copy when the data is passed
from the browser software (in RAM) to the display driver (which
buffers the data in the memory on the video card). Perhaps a fourth
copy exists, on the swap partition of the hard disk.
This is legally significant; as I pointed out in a previous thread,
the license agreements for commercial software frequently contain a
specifc term listing the transfer of the copyright-protected work from
disk to RAM for the purposes of running the program as an instance of
permitted copying. But see below.
>Perhaps someone should sue a person for breach of copyright for
>browsing his web site and see whether the court *in that case* decides
>that downloading an image amounts to "making".
A red herring. Websites are *created* for the purpose of viewing the
data thereon. Any court would likely dismiss as frivolous such a
complaint; the 'making' of the 'copy' in the browser cache being
purely incidental to the process of viewing the site.
If it was a 'private' website, not intended for public viewing, and
protected by passwords etc., the complaint would be unauthorised
access - 'cracking' (misnamed as 'hacking' by some) which is also a
criminal matter. Perhaps theft of service, if it was access that was
normally charged for. Not breach of copyright.
Wouldn't shed any light on the meaning of 'making' in the criminal
statue under discussion, as far as I can see.
$Scott
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:07:47 +0100, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >To make another reply to this post. So you are saying that every time
> >you browse a web site you are guilty of infringing the copyright of
> >any material on that web site.
> >
> >It is a fact that the contents of any web site you visit are
> >downloaded onto your HDD and thus a copy is made.
>
> Yes. And a second copy is made when the contents are *copied* from
> disk to RAM to be displayed. And a third copy when the data is passed
> from the browser software (in RAM) to the display driver (which
> buffers the data in the memory on the video card). Perhaps a fourth
> copy exists, on the swap partition of the hard disk.
>
And a fifth copy when the image is formed on the retina? And a sixth when
the brain translates it into electro-chemical signals?
Nugget
Man admits creating child pornography
Published on 13 September 2004
A FORMER Cambridge man admitted making and possessing indecent
photographs of children when he appeared at court.
Kevin Atkins, now of Hastings, East Sussex, admitted 16 counts of making
an indecent photograph of a child between March 24 and September 30 last
year and three counts of possession of an indecent photograph of a child
on September 30 last year, at Cambridge Crown Court.
The 53-year-old, formerly of Long Reach Road, Chesterton, was ordered to
sign on the sex offenders' register following his guilty plea.
He was released on bail, on condition he lives at his Hastings address,
for completion of pre-sentence reports ahead of his sentencing on
Monday, October 11.
Judge Jonathan Haworth said: "This is a serious offence and the fact I
am adjourning for reports and granting you bail is no indication of
sentence at the end of the day."
http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge/story.asp?StoryID=61404
Nugget
Operation Ore Support Forum
www.madbadorsad.org/sadbbs
dfx
>Headlines like this are the main effect of the 'making' scam:
>
>Man admits creating child pornography
>
>Published on 13 September 2004
>
>A FORMER Cambridge man admitted making and possessing indecent
>photographs of children when he appeared at court.
Yes, shocking. He might have done nothing more than clicked on the
wrong link or had a pop-up open with 16 thumbnail images on it. It
might have been on the screen for less than 3 seconds yet now he is in
his local paper being described as someone who has all but
photographed children being raped.
Papers should be sued for shoddy reporting like this.
Gaz
"Nugget" <acta...@ml1.net> wrote in message
news:eHE1d.616$2h1...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> Headlines like this are the main effect of the 'making' scam:
>
> Man admits creating child pornography
>
> Published on 13 September 2004
>
> A FORMER Cambridge man admitted making and possessing indecent photographs
> of children when he appeared at court.
>
I suggest that well over 95% of the population, make it 99% if we exclude
those involved professionally with law enforcement, would have the
impression that this individual had, himself, with a camera, made indecent
photographs of a child, and then published them on the internet.
And that when he serves his term, he will for ever branded a kiddie fiddler,
his life, to all intents and purposes is over.
None of us know quite how extreme the photos where, or how old the people in
the photos where, but to have a life ruined from sixteen images, kind of
makes you wonder, if anyone went through your cache, would they be able to
find anything incriminating?
16 photographs? chances are you have thousands and thousands of images in
your cache, if you like your porn (perfectly legal and harmless) and browse
a lot of genuine sites, hoe conifident are you that all the images 'look
over 17'?
Gaz
Gaz
"dfx" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ugdek0d32l0hdqh06...@4ax.com...
I think it is the Police, the CPS and the Judiciary conspiring to convict
people of offences that would not hold water in less hysteric times.
Gaz
Nugget
A teacher caught with pornographic images of children has been warned he
faces a jail sentence.
Gerard Cranny admitted at Lincoln Crown Court six charges of making
indecent pseudo-images of youngsters.
A brief hearing was told the 54-year-old, who won a teacher of the year
award in the local newspaper, committed the offences on 22 August last year.
Geography teacher Cranny, of Horton Street, Lincoln, is currently
suspended from the city's Christ Hospital School.
He has taught at the school for more than 20 years and was named the
Lincolnshire Echo's Teacher of the Year in 2002.
Cranny was granted bail after John Lloyd-Jones, defending, asked for
sentencing to be adjourned to a later date for the preparation of reports.
Judge William Everard warned Cranny the law was "very tough" in such
cases and he should understand a prison sentence was likely.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/3659072.stm
Jeremy Barker
> On 12 Sep 2004 06:15:53 -0700, jeremy...@email.com (Jeremy Barker)
> wrote:
>
>
> >What the precise intention was really is irrelevant. What matters is
> >that when a copy is made more images exist than existed previously so
> >the additional ones must have been made. Although - as I mention
> >above - concepts from copyright law help here, it really is not
> >stretching anything and certainly not stretching words as far as some
> >other judicial rulings have stretched other words.
>
> To make another reply to this post. So you are saying that every time
> you browse a web site you are guilty of infringing the copyright of
> any material on that web site.
Certainly, if there was not an implied licence to make the necesssary
copies. The Copyright, Designs and patents Act makes it clear that
even making a transient incidental copy is infringment.
> It is a fact that the contents of any web site you visit are
> downloaded onto your HDD and thus a copy is made.
I think it is normally just downloaded into my computer's memory
(although it could end on hard disk through the operation if virtual
memory paging). There is certainly an argument that storing a copy
without permission is infringment of copyright.
> Perhaps someone should sue a person for breach of copyright for
> browsing his web site and see whether the court *in that case* decides
> that downloading an image amounts to "making".
But by making the material available on the web site it is clearly
intended to be viewed by users of the Internet. This inevitable
involves copies being made and as that is an act protected by
copyright there must be an implied licence granted to anyone using the
website to make the copies necessary in order to view it in order that
they do not infringe copyright.
jb
Nugget
>
> I think it is normally just downloaded into my computer's memory
> (although it could end on hard disk through the operation if virtual
> memory paging). There is certainly an argument that storing a copy
> without permission is infringment of copyright.
>
>
Unless you have taken unusual and specific steps to prevent the browser
caching images and pages on your HD, they will be there at least for a
short time. As such they can be recovered by forensic techniques, unless
you have employed further software to erase them.
Many of the images found in CP raids have been in browser cache and only
in browser cache.
Cynic
>Child porn teacher 'facing jail'
>
>A teacher caught with pornographic images of children has been warned he
>faces a jail sentence.
>
>Gerard Cranny admitted at Lincoln Crown Court six charges of making
>indecent pseudo-images of youngsters.
>
>A brief hearing was told the 54-year-old, who won a teacher of the year
>award in the local newspaper, committed the offences on 22 August last year.
>
>Geography teacher Cranny, of Horton Street, Lincoln, is currently
>suspended from the city's Christ Hospital School.
>
>He has taught at the school for more than 20 years and was named the
>Lincolnshire Echo's Teacher of the Year in 2002.
So he had close access to children for 20 years. So if the current
wisdom is correct then:
(a) He will have abused hundreds of children, and
(b) All those children will now be traumatised and unable to function
properly.
I await to see whether any evidence emerges that that has occured.
But I won't hold my breath.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>> It is a fact that the contents of any web site you visit are
>> downloaded onto your HDD and thus a copy is made.
>
>I think it is normally just downloaded into my computer's memory
>(although it could end on hard disk through the operation if virtual
>memory paging).
No. The default settings of Internet Explorer will ensure that every
image is stored on HDD, usually in a folder called "Temporary Internet
Files". You can change that setting, but very few people do.
>> Perhaps someone should sue a person for breach of copyright for
>> browsing his web site and see whether the court *in that case* decides
>> that downloading an image amounts to "making".
>But by making the material available on the web site it is clearly
>intended to be viewed by users of the Internet. This inevitable
>involves copies being made and as that is an act protected by
>copyright there must be an implied licence granted to anyone using the
>website to make the copies necessary in order to view it in order that
>they do not infringe copyright.
In order to view it perhaps. But the image can remain on your HDD for
*years*. Not to mention if a user decides to use the "save image as"
feature.
--
Cynic
Michael Ross
>Jeremy Barker wrote:
>
>>
>> I think it is normally just downloaded into my computer's memory
>> (although it could end on hard disk through the operation if virtual
>> memory paging). There is certainly an argument that storing a copy
>> without permission is infringment of copyright.
>>
>>
>Unless you have taken unusual and specific steps to prevent the browser
>caching images and pages on your HD, they will be there at least for a
>short time. As such they can be recovered by forensic techniques, unless
>you have employed further software to erase them.
Or unless you use strong crypto on your entire filesystem, as I do.
Gaz
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:34:03 GMT, Nugget <acta...@ml1.net> wrote:
>
>>Jeremy Barker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think it is normally just downloaded into my computer's memory
>>> (although it could end on hard disk through the operation if virtual
>>> memory paging). There is certainly an argument that storing a copy
>>> without permission is infringment of copyright.
>>>
>>>
>>Unless you have taken unusual and specific steps to prevent the browser
>>caching images and pages on your HD, they will be there at least for a
>>short time. As such they can be recovered by forensic techniques, unless
>>you have employed further software to erase them.
>
> Or unless you use strong crypto on your entire filesystem, as I do.
Didnt Blunkett pass into law something about the criminality of not
providing a key to encyrpted files when asked to by the authorities?
Anyway, any encryption can be cracked......
Gaz
Michael Ross
>> Or unless you use strong crypto on your entire filesystem, as I do.
>
>Didnt Blunkett pass into law something about the criminality of not
>providing a key to encyrpted files when asked to by the authorities?
He did. RIP Act. Nasty bit of work. Fortunately I live in the USA,
where they have their own nasty bits of work, but not this particular
one..
>Anyway, any encryption can be cracked......
OK, I'll bite.
Blowfish, for example, is a strong crypto algorithm. Properly
implemented, with 256-bit keys (which is what I use), it is only
breakable by brute force - a process that would millions, probably
billions, of years, with current and reasonably-forseeable technology.
The only flies in the ointment are:
1. weak passphrase.
2. keylogging trojans recording passphrase.
3. beating passphrase out of suspect.
4. <speculative> quantum computers making brute force feasible.
The first three are not, properly, 'cracking'.
If it were true that, for instance, the NSA or GCHQ had some amazing
secret technology that would truly 'crack' *any* crypto, it would
*never* be compromised by use in a court case, especially not in a
case of a few dubious porno images.
Gaz
Could refusal to cooperate be considered contempt of court?
Gaz
Cynic
wrote:
>>Unless you have taken unusual and specific steps to prevent the browser
>>caching images and pages on your HD, they will be there at least for a
>>short time. As such they can be recovered by forensic techniques, unless
>>you have employed further software to erase them.
>
>Or unless you use strong crypto on your entire filesystem, as I do.
Which may well prevent the *detection* of the act, but does not negate
the legality of the act itself.
--
Cynic
Mike Zanker
> Didnt Blunkett pass into law something about the criminality of not
> providing a key to encyrpted files when asked to by the authorities?
This comes under Part III of RIPA which has yet to be implemented.
Mike.
Cynic
>Didnt Blunkett pass into law something about the criminality of not
>providing a key to encyrpted files when asked to by the authorities?
RIPA. Wasn't that before Blunkett? I don't think that part actually
got into law (BICBW)
>Anyway, any encryption can be cracked......
*Some* encryption can be cracked. Modern secure ciphers cannot be
cracked in any reasonable time, and even then require enormous
processing power.
The usual way that the police "crack" any data encrypted with a secure
cipher is to (a) get the suspect to tell them the password, (b) get
someone else who the suspect has confided in to tell them, (c) find
the password written down somewhere when they search the house or HDD,
(d) install keyboard sniffers or similar trojans on the suspect PC
before making the arrest or (e) try various guessable passwords in
case the suspect has used something obvious (known as a "dictionary
attack").
Regardless of how they did it, the media will then report that the
police forensic guy was able to defeat the encryption.
As an aside, if I were an unscrupulous law-enforcement guy who was
concerned that there was widespread use of encryption by criminals, I
would develop a trojan that did nothing obvious from the user's POV
and was designed to be as undetectable as possible even to an expert,
but which recorded the last X000 key presses in a disguised file or
elsewhere on the HDD (there are usually a few sectors "left over" at
the end of a HDD that the operating system cannot use). I would then
get that trojan as widely distributed as possible so that any computer
that is suspected of having illegal material in encrypted form may
well have the trojan on it. I then have an excellent chance of
finding the password(s) without needing to say how I did so. If I
worked for a sufficxiently powerful law-enforcement agency, I might
even be able to persude the anti-virus companies to keep quiet if they
discovered it. Or I might even persuade Microsoft to include it in
their standard distribution of operating systems.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>The only flies in the ointment are:
>1. weak passphrase.
>2. keylogging trojans recording passphrase.
>3. beating passphrase out of suspect.
>4. <speculative> quantum computers making brute force feasible.
and
5. A breakthrough in mathematical techniques that allow the algorithm
to be worked backwards without much computing power (and this is
probably the greatest threat to the *long-term* security of archived
encrypted data in general).
--
Cynic
Cynic
>Could refusal to cooperate be considered contempt of court?
That's what that part of RIPA is all about - making is a serious
criminal offence to withold the key from the police.
OTOH all it means is that you have to have planned a strategy so as to
have plausible deniability that you are able to provide the key.
Which ISTM would not be that difficult to achieve.
--
Cynic
Michael Ross
wrote:
>*Some* encryption can be cracked. Modern secure ciphers cannot be
>cracked in any reasonable time, and even then require enormous
>processing power.
True.
>The usual way that the police "crack" any data encrypted with a secure
>cipher is to (a) get the suspect to tell them the password, (b) get
>someone else who the suspect has confided in to tell them, (c) find
>the password written down somewhere when they search the house or HDD,
>(d) install keyboard sniffers or similar trojans on the suspect PC
>before making the arrest or (e) try various guessable passwords in
>case the suspect has used something obvious (known as a "dictionary
>attack").
All of which can be defeated by being appropriately careful in
choosing passphrase and being bloody careful what you do with it.
>Regardless of how they did it, the media will then report that the
>police forensic guy was able to defeat the encryption.
>
>As an aside, if I were an unscrupulous law-enforcement guy who was
>concerned that there was widespread use of encryption by criminals, I
>would develop a trojan that did nothing obvious from the user's POV
>and was designed to be as undetectable as possible even to an expert,
>but which recorded the last X000 key presses in a disguised file or
>elsewhere on the HDD (there are usually a few sectors "left over" at
>the end of a HDD that the operating system cannot use). I would then
>get that trojan as widely distributed as possible so that any computer
>that is suspected of having illegal material in encrypted form may
>well have the trojan on it. I then have an excellent chance of
>finding the password(s) without needing to say how I did so.
Not sure you would get away with that. Courts are becoming (rightly)
wary of the testimony of computer 'experts', and defence briefs are
becoming wise to the possible defences as to how alleged evidence got
onto disks.
Expect the defence to undertake a very close scrutiny of the 'chain of
evidence', and how the prosecution 'experts' got from A to B to C to
D...
> If I
>worked for a sufficxiently powerful law-enforcement agency, I might
>even be able to persude the anti-virus companies to keep quiet if they
>discovered it. Or I might even persuade Microsoft to include it in
>their standard distribution of operating systems.
Which is a sufficiently good reason for a. using a less insecure OS
than anything M$ makes or b. using cryptography that takes a boot-time
passphrase entry, and encrypts the entire drive - such as DriveCrypt
Plus Pack - thus bypassing anything nasty that may be in your windoze
setup. Your only vulnerability there is *hardware* keylogging - and
that's the province of serious spooks, and can be minimised by
physical security (and subtle tamper-evident sealing) of your
hardware.
(no, I'm not a full-blown card-carrying cypherpunk, but I know enough
to be dangerous :-)
The one big problem with DCPP is that it isn't open-source, so it's
not possible to scrutinise the code for flaws or backdoors. An
open-source boot-time whole-disk strong crypto program for windoze
doesn't exist, and is badly needed.
But it's an unlikely scenario; if M$ did put such code in windoze,
and/or AV companies were persuaded to ignore a certain trojan, and it
was used in court, it would become public knowledge - sooner rather
than later.
Alan G
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:48:55 +0100, "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Didnt Blunkett pass into law something about the criminality of not
>>providing a key to encyrpted files when asked to by the authorities?
snip
>As an aside, if I were an unscrupulous law-enforcement guy who was
>concerned that there was widespread use of encryption by criminals, I
>would develop a trojan that did nothing obvious from the user's POV
>and was designed to be as undetectable as possible even to an expert,
>but which recorded the last X000 key presses in a disguised file or
>elsewhere on the HDD (there are usually a few sectors "left over" at
>the end of a HDD that the operating system cannot use). I would then
>get that trojan as widely distributed as possible so that any computer
>that is suspected of having illegal material in encrypted form may
>well have the trojan on it. I then have an excellent chance of
>finding the password(s) without needing to say how I did so. If I
>worked for a sufficxiently powerful law-enforcement agency, I might
>even be able to persude the anti-virus companies to keep quiet if they
>discovered it. Or I might even persuade Microsoft to include it in
>their standard distribution of operating systems.
"Symantec has labelled a program that enables Chinese surfers to view
blocked websites as a Trojan Horse. Upshot? Users of Norton Anti-Virus
cannot access Freegate, a popular program which circumvents government
blocks, the FT reports."
There is an allegation that the company is cooperating with the
chinese government on this
Cynic
wrote:
>Not sure you would get away with that. Courts are becoming (rightly)
>wary of the testimony of computer 'experts', and defence briefs are
>becoming wise to the possible defences as to how alleged evidence got
>onto disks.
In this particular case, the method used to obtain the password would
not be considered evidence toward either the culpability of the
defendant nor the chain of evidence. The fact that the password
results in recognisable data is of itself proof that it is the correct
password and that the data was indeed encrypted. If asked to explain
how they obtained the password, the police say that advanced forensic
techniqued were used that it is not in the public interest to reveal,
and I cannot see a judge regarding it as important enough to the
defence case to demand that it is revealed nor that it harms the
prosecution case not to do so.
>But it's an unlikely scenario; if M$ did put such code in windoze,
>and/or AV companies were persuaded to ignore a certain trojan, and it
>was used in court, it would become public knowledge - sooner rather
>than later.
As above - it would not become public knowledge due to a court case,
but if every policeman dealing with computer crime knew about it, one
of them is sure to blab sooner or later. It is possible to keep such
knowledge secret from all but a few highly trusted people - but then
it is likely to be used in routine cases but only in matters of
national importance. Unless someone sets up a forensic consultancy
where, for a (high) fee, they will find the password of encrypted
files without revealing how they did it. As said, with the password
being its own proof, the police would not need to go further in a
court case than to say the password was obtained by paying XYZ company
to crack the encryption, and nobody can argue that the password is
wrong because the exact method used to get it is unknown.
Such a "forensic consultancy" would be quite a money spinner - thinks
...
--
Cynic