@AC "Oft repeated, but incorrect."
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".
Biting the hand that feeds IT
