Silently clicking on porn ads you can't even see – this could be you... Security firms have repeated warnings that unofficial versions of Pokemon Go are likely tainted with spyware or trojans. RiskIQ has found more than 215 unofficial versions of the app in more than 21 app stores. Separately security researchers at security software firm ESET warn that the first ever fake lockscreen app on the …
Which will be no help at all in your defence if the police find a child porn image from those ads in your cache - if you are in possession of it then you are guilty.
Oft repeated, but incorrect. Look up the law in question, it says things like "that the defendant knowingly or deliberately did ...". Showing that there is reasonable doubt that you knowingly or deliberately obtained the nasty pictures, for example by demonstrating the presence of malware such as mentioned in the article, and the pictures only being in such locations as would be caused by such malware, would indeed constitute an effective defence.
"Oft repeated, but incorrect. Look up the law in question, it says things like "that the defendant knowingly or deliberately did ...". Showing that there is reasonable doubt that you knowingly or deliberately obtained the nasty pictures, for example by demonstrating the presence of malware such as mentioned in the article, and the pictures only being in such locations as would be caused by such malware, would indeed constitute an effective defence."
You willing to TRY that? "Innocent until proven guilty" is just ink on a page to the plods and judges who feel the need to exert power over the plebs. Anyone who doesn't will likely find their career wrecked by planted kiddy pron.
Such matters are treated as "Strict liability" under English Law where you are effectively treated as "guilty unless you can prove your innocence".
[i]To prove most criminal offences, it must be shown that the actus reus (action) and mens rea (intention) are present.
[...]
Strict liability offences are offences where mens rea does not form a part of what it is necessary to prove the offence. These are offences where there is no mens rea required to establish liability, in relation to one or more elements of the actus reus of the offence; in short, the ‘guilty act’ is sufficient. [/i]
In a case like this, you would very likely not only have to prove the presence of malware but that you'd taken sufficient precautions to try to avoid it and that you hadn't deliberately allowed it to get onto your system so you could look at the kiddie porn and then claim "it was the malware that did it".
Disturbingly, Pika-porn (poke-porn) has existed for a lot longer the current go-poke-fad. where 'x' from team R poke-s 'y' from team whatever, and poke-er and poke-ee don't even have to be one sex or another because futa...
With this state of affairs, videos of paris hilton could be construed as educational and beneficial rather than bizarre and pika-spew.
Wouldn't that be poke a mong?
Have two people fell off a cliff and another crashed into a tree playing this fad, Tamagotchi are they still going?
Next step in the evolution of the malware could be bricking the device or installing ransomeware till you pay up.
Any of you lot out there with the skills fancy creating a pokemon character that eats every pokemon character they have collected and change the screensaver to a steaming turd with bits of undigested pokemon sticking out of it.
I do however enjoy the youtube vids of people walking into shit when texting.
I've never used an iPhone but as far as I know they only have the one official app store right? And for Android there is the Google Play store. That's 2 stores. What are the other 19 stores?; I assume they are more than likely shady sources of APKs of questionable legitimacy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
