In other news...
Please feel free to commit as many high-tech crimes in Northumbria as you like, as they don't appear to have a functioning computer forensics team there...
The stumbling progress of extreme porn case law continues with Newcastle magistrates dropping a charge of possessing a single image of extreme porn – because local police and prosecution appear to have lost the evidence. Not only is this embarrassing, but anyone out and about in the Newcastle area who happens across the dodgy …
"When we made the original decision [to charge], the image was provided to us on disc. The defence requested details of where the image was on the computer and when the computer was checked, the image was no longer there. In light of that, we felt we could no longer go ahead with the case."
The old "Cut & Paste" rather than "Copy & Paste" mistake I'll wager.
I'm a Geordie, born and raised, and even I despair when I see stories like this. I thought Northumbria plods were quite good? At least they caught that Moat character (whose last words were "Divvent tayze us man!")
At least we're better than the Bristol plod who, according to the headlines: "Jo police turn to Facebook". Using Facebook for a criminal investigation? Surely the headline should have read "Jo police f*cking clueless".
Colin: "At least we're better than the Bristol plod who, according to the headlines: "Jo police turn to Facebook". "
There are probably a good deal of younger people who don't buy newspapers and don't watch much TV (there's nothing on these days!). A lot of them will use FaceFriends*, and maybe a small percentage of these leave the house occasionally, so may have seen something?
I would think it means that Bristol Police are keeping up with technology, unlike "File, what's a file?"
*FaceFriends was brought to you by the IT Crowd, and was a most excellent episode :)
DOH Ctrl V instead of Ctrl C (Assuming they use windoze which seems almost a certainty)
Then i suppose they either didn't consider it worth trying a forensic recovery of the file (Don't they normally make images of the drives before messing around with the contents though??) was worth it or that it hurt their prosecution chances enough to drop it.
And i'm not being funny but with the AWFUL definition of extreme porn, only a single image is really quite impressive, I'm sure I could trawl through any random machine and find a half dozen images cached somewhere that would probably fit the description.
The short cut is CTRL-X for cut, CTRL-C for copy and CTRL-V for paste... Same on the Mac except use the Apple only tangled string key instead of CTRL.
A friend of mine was thinking of applying to join the computer forensics team so me being a techie she showed me some of the blurb and procedures... Let's just say that if anyone thinks outside the box a bit, they'll probably get away with it. All the processes they carry out are 1,2,3 steps etc. Could be done by my mother to be honest. Even a script kiddy has more idea of what is going on.
Then again, given the salary, I wouldn't expect many people with real IT ability to be hammering at their door for a position either.
... you've had plenty of time, there were enough responses to your Freedom Bill consultation objecting to this stupid law , so get your bloody fingers out and get rid it before we see more cases like this one
* * * * *
A MAN who downloaded staged images of sexual violence against women has gone on trial under new laws banning "extreme pornography."
In one of the first cases of its kind in the country, Kevin Webster is accused of having "grossly offensive or disgusting" pictures, even though they are "fakes".
Darron Whitehead, prosecuting, told jurors [...] "We know the images were fake. The question is whether it is realistic or portrayed in that way.
"The intentions of the persons within those images are irrelevant. It is what is depicted in those images which is material."
* * * * *
WTF? We know they're fake, but because they *LOOK* realistic, we're going to prosecute him anyway!
using this argument - surely there are a large amount of horror films which are now illegal to view as they depict graphic and disgusting violence - a lot of the time sexual violence.....films like Hostel, Antichrist etc... the fact that it is not real is apparently not relevant. I mean, shit....half of Hollywood needs shutting down as they're clearly peddling filth designed to warp people's minds.
while you may get away with copies of hostel etc I wonder where you would if you were to take screengrabs from the film at key points
could be interesting since you would also be classed as having created the image so it wouldnt just be possessing extreme porn it would also be producing extreme porn.
of course if you sent the image to anyone else then you would be classed as creating, possessing and distributing extreme pornography
"surely there are a large amount of horror films which are now illegal to view"
No, because the law contains a specific exclusion for films which have been BBFC classified, but only in their *entirety*
64 Exclusion of classified films etc.
(1) Section 63 does not apply to excluded images.
(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images
contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been
extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally
for the purpose of sexual arousal.
You appear to be muddling the law against possessing grossly offensive or disgusting pictures with the law against creating said material and the anti-violence laws.
Somebody somewhere has decided that we are too immature* to decide what we do and don't want to see and has, out of the kindness of his heart, decided for us.
Whether or not they're fake is irrelevant.
*said person might have a point: if I ever meet him my incisive argument against his beliefs would be a swift kick to the groin.
Trust me, I'm not muddling anything up.
Both cases involve the same law (Sections 63 - 68 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) and involve *possession* of these images, the one that I cited just goes even further that the one mentioned in the article and takes it to its ludicrous extreme that *even though* the Prosecution accepts that the images are fakes, it falls under Paragraph 7 of Section 63 ie:
(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic
way, any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s
anus, breasts or genitals,
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person
or animal was real.
My sincere hope is that the Jury will see sense and say "This is a stupid law, we don't care what it says, we're going to find the defendant Not Guilty".
Many places judge the intention rather than the fact. In Canada it is unlawful for someone to depict someone underage in porn, even if the person doing the depiction is over the age of consent. If a reasonable person were to view the image and come to a reasonable belief in it's accuracy, that is all that counts.
The plod ignored the techie who explained the recovered image was in a place on disk that means it would be difficult to prove "ownership/intent" and would suggets the images was never accessed by the suspect. They simply pass the image (on a CD) to the CPS and hide the information that would sop the CPS from starting a prosecution.
The defence ask for details - the CPS ask the police who forward the request to techies. Techies repeat what they originally said to the (now promoted) police officer and the case is dropped due to lack of evidence. This costs us taxpayers roughly 100K each time this happens!
Until we stop rewarding the plod for hiding/constructing evidence and (perjury) we are going to see more and more cases dropped where a competent defense shows how the police hid evidence for personal gain.
At a magistrates court level to "manipulate" disclosure.
The way it works is they only disclose whats relevant to getting a prosecution and then hope the defence (usually legal aid) is too overworked to demand all the material marked as either unused or more normally CND (clearly not disclosable)
If it is marked CND then the defence have to apply for the court for disclosure before they get to see the evidence and its a lottery if they get the application granted even though the law supposedly forces the disclosure of all relevant information. Even if you win an application getting the disclosure can be hard work, especially if you know it shows innocence and so do the plod.
Its not uncommon for the CPS to fail to disclose properly at the primary level in 25% of cases.
Its likely that in this case, like many others the defence was awake enough to ask a simple key question and rather than disclose and show that they had failed on primary disclosure its easier to offer no evidence, sweep it over and move on.
A follow up to that post:
Kevin Webster has just been cleared of any wrong doing.
"It's good to know ordinary members of a jury can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, even if the law and its enforcers decide that the distinction doesn't matter."
Making, possessing, distributing such images is illegal. Which is why they deleted it for fear it was a honeytrap and and why you'll, likely, never see a Playmobil reconstruction. Moreover, only one of the Village People was a policeman, although I would agree they all looked like idiots.
One image, as in singular? Smells more like a fit up or a downloading accident. How were they reported?
From what I can see, the porn industry works by continually offering new material to its customers. Looking at the not insubstantial quantity of (non extreme) porn on my hard drive, it is unsurprisingly populated in rough proportion to the things that turn me on. There's a lot of my favourite turns ons and rapidly less of activities I find less arousing. One off images don't exist - either I like it and search out a bit more, or I don't and it's deleted.
I suggest this may be another 'Tony the Tiger' case where it was forwarded from someone else. Just because it's in your e-mail inbox doesn't mean you approve or appreciate it.
it's the naive that suffer ... any half respectable IT savvy person would have some form of backup plan in place, which would mean plod could steal all their IT kit, and they would be back up in minutes ... let me see
Off-site clone of OS (possibly many OS images, if you virtualise)
Off site base data backup (possibly no more than a month old)
On line differential backup account (in false name etc, for the truely paranoid).
With the cost of storage falling all the time, it'd be quite easy to use a couple of 1TB USB drives, park them at a mates house, and job done. Bit of truecrypt and plod have a problem ....
Something smells in this story. We are not privy to the full story.
Standard *proper* forensic analysis of a PC starts with the PC being powered *down* and the hard drive physically removed, and cloned. The original is then stored, and never accessed again. All work is undertaken on clones attached to other computers. This insulates the investigator from any chance that the boot-up process is compromised. It also means that the defence can be given an exact copy of what the investigators worked on.
It's been this way for *years*. So it's hard to believe the forensic team managed to mess up here.
However it's easier to believe that a budget concious, IT-illiterate (and possible tech-hating) police officer decided to get cheap forensic "analysis", and is now paying the price.
 Repeated contact with many policemen over many years has shown me that your average officer has a luddite mentatilty, and is *deeply* suspicious of anyone who "knows science". It you ever stopped by plod, never reveal you have any great technical knowledge.
Surely they recorded where on the drive it was located, e.g. the physical sector? Assuming that they worked off a forensic image it can't possibly have disappeared. They did work off a forensic image didn't they....
And charging for a single image? If there had been a few extreme images I could understand it, but anybody who regularly surfs the web for adult porn is bound to pick up the odd unwanted image. I can only assume that they had some evidence that he had actively looked for that type of material.
Because it's a strict liability offence, there's no need to look for evidence the defendant was actively looking for the material. Plod find it - BANG - time to meet Big Ron in the showers.
People missed what NuLab were up to ... quite a few of their laws removed the need for any intent to do wrong. Makes it harder for a jury to acquit. Theres more ways than one to scrap jury trials .....
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019