Wisconsinrsol is right in part and wrong in part - here is what I mean

While the 4th Amendment does protect against unlawful searches the exception to that is if the item is in plain view and if it is, then no warrant is needed.

Now that said, just because a cell phone or a computer itself is in plain view does not mean the contents of such are subject to search and seizure.

What I speak of is where someone gets your cell phone number or email address and sends you some illegal photo of some child - you are the one they go after and not the sender, on the argument that since you own the phone or its your email address you are the guilty one even if you did not want the photo sent to you or that you did not solicit for the photo to be sent to you.

Blocking is no better, that is censorship and from what I remember from my HS civics class 25 years ago was that Censorship is against our constitution as well. Might as well just start deleting things from everyone's personal computers and phones. China is all about censorship... if you think it is such a great idea, would you want to live there to endure it continually?

When it comes to this subject, you can't pick and choose what someone is going to block or not, unless you are a business and it is your network and you don't wan to your employees to be viewing those things while at work. Otherwise it is not something that should even be broached, in my opinion. Censorship is a slippery slow that I don't think anyone really wants to go down do they?

I absolutely agree with that and have not as Wisconsin seems to think advocated for warrantless searches or the wanton destruction of property. What I have been talking about is not allowing the transmission to succeed. To use your example, someone tries to send an illegal image to you by email. As it is now the image will trigger an alert which will be forwarded to the NCMEC and from there if necessary the information will be forwarded to local law enforcement agencies to go after the sender and you.

The same methodology that generates the report can be used to stop the transmission dead in its tracks. You don't get in trouble because you have done nothing illegal. If anyone gets reported, it would be the sender only. The sender is still in possession of the file, no one has searched or destroyed his personal property. The only knowledge anyone has of him is that he attempted to transmit an illegal image.

The current way results in two arrests and prosecutions and the illegal image is allowed to spread. The other way only one person gets arrested and prosecuted, the sender, and the image is not allowed to spread. Since any filtering only occurs after image upload there is no expectation of privacy, the uploaded image is a copy, is no longer under the sender's control and has essentially been placed into "plain view" by the sender.

"The current way results in two arrests and prosecutions and the illegal image is allowed to spread."

That is why they will not change the way things are... If it can't spread then there can't be more arrests and more kudos for those that investigate, arrest, prosecute and defend. You are trying to apply logic where none is usually used.

Although you will never get me to agree to any kind of blocking by anyone private or government. That is just a bad idea on so many levels and the slope it puts us all on is just too risky.

Warrantless searches would only be to follow. Such as that those images put in plain view by the sender, what you just said sounds like you would be OK with them warrantlessly searching that person's computer for the original message and let us not for get about the common practice of email spoofing from where it is sent from. Not to mention if they are using a web based email to send the picture, it doesn't really mean that it ever came from their harddrive at all.

Censorship is a moot point seeing as how the images we are discussing are already illegal and totally censored. In a legal context the First Amendment is not a blanket protection for all material and never has been. The State has always had the right to restrict material so long as there is a compelling State interest to do so and any legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. Here the compelling State interest is in protecting children from sexual abuse and censoring CP has long been held to be a large part of that interest. Blocking its transmission and only it's transmission on internet connected networks would more than likely be narrowly tailored enough.

Censorship is not part of the Constitution unless you consider it in the sense of free speech. Schools and towns etc censor books all the time. It is not illegal it is just wrong. But when you get into illegal items a much different story

I absolutely do not condone warrantless searches and please STOP attributing things to me that I have never stated.

When a person takes an affirmative step to transmit something by use of the internet, such as me placing this post, that person no longer has any right to privacy over what has been transmitted. He or she has voluntarily placed that information into the hands of a third or even more parties. That puts said information into the category of "plain view" like it or not. On the other hand simply because someone did transmit an illegal image that does not give the State the right for a warrantless search of that suspect's computers, phones or tablets. It would however be enough for probable cause to get a warrant.

As far as email spoofing and the other issues you mention, none of those are new. They are all issues people deal with already. Slippery slope? We're already at the bottom of the slope so you can either bury your head in the sand and continue to feed the criminal justice system fresh meat or you can try to pry every advantage possible from current trends. Blocking is coming whether you like it or not.

P2P is not like placing a post on this site, it is not uploaded anywhere until another user requests it. So thus still considered private property.

If we were at the bottom of that slippery slope, we would already be under marshal law, last time I checked the National Guard is not parked in every town enforcing a curfew and restricting travel. So the only person here that has put their head anywhere is you, because you believe that if they just started blocking all illegal images that it would just stop there. These issues are far bigger than just CP.

1. You are right as long as no transmission occurs it is private property and nothing happens to anyone and I've never said otherwise. However, once transmission occurs, whatever is being transmitted and only what is being transmitted is no longer private property. That's current reality and has been for quite some time now.

2. The slope I was referring to was on this issue alone. This gorilla is already in your living room and his friends are going to be visiting in about 6 months

3. I never said it would just stop there either but it would put a large dent in things like Advocate2 was asking about.

well here is my 2 cents, not that anyone wants it. my son has not been to sentencing yet, he pled guilty when they arrested him thinking if he worked with them they might consider not coming down on as hard, but thats a joke.but here is what i do not understand is why his attorney told me the day he went before the federal judge to try and get a bond(it was denied) his attorney said to me, he may as well have molested a child he would get a lot less time than for possesion of Porn. now to me thats a sad sick situation.

My LO "cooperated" with them and they mopped the floor w/ him. I tell everybody now, be polite then; name address and my lawers card PERIOD!

An interesting fact is the movie business in California is exempt from child porn. Money really does talk.

I agree, that if viewing is re-victimizing, then all the news media would be liable for re-victimizing all those crimes that they report on and show pictures of.

Many higher courts have recently ruled that having a shared folder on a P2P does not constitute transmission. There has also been some talk about the software that the cops use to find the people with CP on P2P networks (in the vein that it actually can read files in peoples folders even if they are not shared). I believe this is true because my son who is very computer knowledgeable swears to me and the police that day that his sharing on the P2P network was turned off. Unfortunately they took the computer before we could prove it and the useless lawyer did not have the kahunas to ask for the proof. In fact, it is in the transcripts of that day that the cops questioned him extensively - he was honest about everything and when he told them that he did not share his files they questioned him about how you turn off the sharing etc. and he went through the steps with him so I know they wanted to see if he knew the difference = which he did. That may not be concrete proof that his files were turned off but it tells me that the software they use is able to 'peer' into files that are not shared which is to me illegal search and seizure. My son was not charged with transmission but they used that to coerce him into taking the plea deal.

What you describe Advocate is why I would prefer to have that taken away from law enforcement and performed at a completely different level and only after affirmative steps were made to actually initiate a transmission of CP. No more warrantless searching of someone's computer simply because it's connected to the internet.

What I found in my husband's case (didn't have anything to do with a computer, although not for lack of trying mind you) and we painfully discovered how computer illiterate our judicial system really is from the judges to the attorneys. As a sys admin/computer geek myself I do take for granted what I consider basic knowledge is advanced knowledge to most home users and people in our courts it would appear.

Getting a copy of the image of the harddrive that the LEOs have confiscated, which should be available during discovery in regular proceedings. Then it can be examined by the defense's expert. The security and things should all be available. If there were any changes they would be in the event logs and they would be timestamped. If the system was a Win 7 system there is even more ways to figure out if anyone tampered with the security on the files that made them sharing vs non-sharing. Although what it sounds like it that is too late at this point?

LEOs have far to much leeway to gather information. They can lie cheat and steal in their attempts to get someone to incriminate themselves. This alone should be taken away, I understand that interrogation is a dirty business, but there should be boundaries that are video'd and not crossed.