'Accidental' child-porn download sending man to prison

Source: KOVR Sacramento

A local man is likely to go to prison for years after he says he accidentally downloaded child pornography onto his computer.

Matthew White, 22, said he was surfing for pornography two years ago on Limewire -- a fire sharing application that allows users to trade music, movies, games and pictures -- when he discovered that some of the files he had downloaded were images of children.

Matt claims he quickly erased the files.

... About a year later, FBI agents showed up at his family's home. The family agreed to let agents examine the computer, and at first, they couldn't find anything.

Investigators later were able to recover the deleted images from deep within the hard drive.

"I asked them, 'Where did you get that? I don't remember that.' I asked them, 'Could I access that if I wanted to?'" Matt said. "They said no."

Facing 20 years in prison for possessing child pornography, Matt is pleading guilty on the advice of his public defender in hopes of getting a three and a half year sentence. He will also serve 10 years probation and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

... Internet searches reveal a large number of complaints from people who say they've accidentally downloaded child pornography through Limewire.

Read more: http://cbs13.com/local/limewire.child.porn.2.1346842.html

:shrug:

So they have to find some way to occupy their time.

...that the FBI runs approximately 75% of the child porn sites on the internet. They say that they do it to catch pedophiles, although they keep the profits they make from people who access these sites from countries where it's legal. I wish I still had the link to the article so I could post it for you. I lost alot of really good links I had saved when my last computer crashed.

Story last week: "hundreds of Texans are in prison on false arson convictions."

http://www.texasobserver.org/features/fire-and-innocence

sometimes you get a link that doesn't tell you it is porn. You click on and about choke..even the pictures in an image search. How does google let this happen. I guess I have been lucky that when I search child porn doesn't pop up on my answers. I think google should be the one prosecuted for letting it happen.

Because Google, hell any search engine, doesn't have the manpower to have individuals review every single link that comes up for a particular search.

Go to the Google page, at the upper right will be a link to Search Settings. Go down to SafeSearch and set it to Moderate or Strict Search. Either of those will limit the chances of getting porn in your search results, strict of course will reduce it more. But sometimes those settings will block sites you might want to see - you will never know unless you compare the same search under different settings.

You must have cookies enabled to set the search preferences.

viewing it since its the viewers that drive demand however it seems reasonable to me that child porn might be accidently downloaded so I think there has be something in place if that happens. What has happened to this person is unjust.

As abhorrent as child pornography is, I am sure there are people in prison who are not guilty of it, just like there are people on death row who are innocent.

I would love to have all those involved in the prosecution found to have child porn found on their computers.

If they could examine the computer and determine everything from it, why couldn't they determine the guy didn't want it and never looked at it again? Especially when they told him it was impossible for him to access.

Hmm... That would indicate that he never intentionally downloaded it or viewed it again, which kind of conflicts with what they are accusing him of doing or being. One would think the FBI could have already determined that and could have cut him some slack.

All of those involved in the prosecution should have their computers examined by the same standards, and prosecuted if anything is there at all. I bet if you told all of them pushing this case that they had to have that happen in order to proceed, they would drop it in a heartbeat.

It was probably a choice of taking a "short" sentence by pleading guilty rather than facing nearly sure conviction in front of a jury. Public Defenders are woefully underpaid, underfunded and understaffed, especially in comparison to the resources put into Prosecutor's offices. Oftentimes, the very best a PD can do is help a defendant negotiate a plea bargain, even 100% innocent defendants.

However, his images were deleted and he was not able to access them anymore. It doesn't seem right for him to face 20 years in that case.

when news reports were claiming that agencies were trying to get to the bottom of some of the Nigerian scam type emails, I applied for a position from craigslist that ended up being something very much like the Nigerian scam. . . "we just need you to deposit the checks, take your 10%, and wire the rest back to us." So I followed it through to receiving the check, called local, state, and FBI to let them know and that I had retained all emails, envelopes, etc. did they want any of it, did they want me to appear to do as asked so they could trace the money, etc.

They told me they couldn't care less. I've never thought to assist or report anything since then, what's the point? They put out warnings and say they are investigating, but they aren't, they only believe in buyer beware.

On a side note, one of the forums I frequent, like here, sometimes gets late night spammers. One night I noticed what was clearly a spam post for something like Viagra, so I opened it in order to report it through the appropriate link. . . it wasn't Viagra at all it was all porn active youtube type stuff that started up (about 5 in a column) as soon as I opened the post. They could've been child porn for all I know, I clicked the report post within milliseconds so I honestly don't know. But those images nonetheless got on my harddrive. So does that mean I could go to jail for 20 years just because I was being a good citizen on an open forum?

I agree with your last sentences, it isn't right and he should get a better lawyer.

(No, I'm not interested in downloading porn.)

Is there more to the story than we are being told?
:shrug:

He probably felt an option between pleading guilty and getting what he got, and fighting the charge and getting a vastly worse sentence. There's a thick layer of "accusation equals guilt" over some crimes and this is definitely one of them.

The guy would have been looking at most of his life in prison if he rolled the dice and lost. I'd have taken the deal too rather than tust a jury full of angry, fearful Americans out for their pound of flesh.

with child porn claims, i think the fact that he is being prosecuted should tell us is isnt quite what we are being led to believe in the story....

Not that there aren't real pedophiles out there, but those sick fucks usually like to keep their perversions as far from the general public as possible just so they can avoid detection, and obviously the type of legal problems this guy is dealing with right now (only they deserve it, while he does not, assuming he's telling the truth.)

The corporate bastards on the other hand, are desperate to do just about anything to get rid of the means by which files are traded. If Limewire becomes known as a place where baby rapers like to trade kiddie porn, then who would object to shutting it down. I gave up on Limewire years ago because too much on there was virus/trojan/worm infected. Which probably also came from the corporatist wannabe cops.

How did this come to the attention of the FBI a year later? Generally, the FBI nails people who are actively looking at this porn on the internet through websites. If this kid is telling the truth and downloaded a file labeled differently from that of child porn, how the hell did the FBI even know about it?

And he deleted it a year before they came to his house? Generally, the longer a program remains deleted (and not just sitting in your recycling bin), the more it deteriorates and the harder it is to access.

It just seems things aren't adding up here. You'd think if the file was still on the kid's computer, they could see when it was downloaded, what the name of the file was when he downloaded it (which would back up his claim that he was searching for College Girls Gone Wild...unless it's named 'CHILD PORN XXX' or something like that) and when he deleted it. Had he downloaded it and then only minutes later deleted it, I think you'd have evidence suggesting his story is true.

I don't know. I'd like to know how the FBI was tipped off on this guy a year later.

But when you're being arrested for downloading something off Limewire, it's because the FBI was tipped off by it. What tipped them off about this particular file? That's the question. I mean, if it's named something legal (20-something girls masturbating), why would the FBI even be all over a file like that?

If he's telling the truth and the FBI arrested him even though the file was named something innocent (well compared to child porn) and there is evidence to suggest he deleted it moments after downloading, then not only should they be investigated, but the public defender should be fired.

But there could be more to this story.

and ended up grabbing some innocent people by mistake.

Because the FBI couldn't have a case if they labeled the files as innocent, legal sex files.

So, if they did plant these files, they did so with the subject of them being pretty damn clear and if that's the case, the guy is not innocent.

Me too - something is missing from this story.

myself. When I worked for child welfare I had a guy we knew was looking at kiddie porn. But other people had access to the computer, so anything on there could not be linked to the guy unless he was observed looking at the stuff. In which case the witness has to be able to remember what he saw and those images have to be found on the computer. We had a difficult time getting this guy, as it's not that easy to prosecute cases like this. Generally it's easier to get people by going undercover and contacting them via computer.

That said, I still tell people not to touch Internet kiddie porn with a ten foot pole. Don't even get curious and give it a glance. Oh, and when the FBI knocks on your door, ask for a warrant. Sheesh...

Especially given that it is supposedly only one download of child porn. Since when does the FBI have the resources to be tracking down every person who randomly stumbles on something illegal once? There had to be some reason they were interested in him or that file in particular, given the number of files on the internet and the number of people who download them.

My best guess is that they uploaded the file themselves and got the IPs of the people who downloaded it, and then checked back on those people later. This could have been part of a sting operation against real child porn consumers (or music sharers for that matter), and making an example out of some random kid who downloaded the wrong file is exactly the kind of scare tactic I would expect from this sort of organization. I'm obviously speculating here, but the idea that the FBI ferreted that kid out with no prior knowledge of either him or the file is not believable.

And the FBI investigation and arrest pretty much ruined his life.

It was a year and a half of sheer hell for him and our family, during which the prosecutors repeatedly pressured him to plead guilty or face at least a dozen years in federal prison. It took a lot of courage for him to stand his ground. Most people don't because the stakes are so high, and that is what the feds count on.

Just days before the trial was to begin, they dropped the charges.

So that whole time they knew their case was not strong enough to convict but they tried to 'bully' him into pleading guilty.

In the meantime he lost his career and many of his friends, the whole community thought he was a despicable pervert, we had to cash in his retirement to pay for the lawyer, and he suffered long-term emotional repercussions.

I know child pornography is a real problem, but there are many ways such images can get on a computer. It is heartless to point a finger at the easiest target, destroy his life merely with an accusation, then hound him until he pleads guilty.

I see it as a witchhunt.

to get into law "enforcement".

i guess it depends on the way you look at it :)

They didn't drop the charges. The pisser in his case is that he was demonstrably innocent, but there was enough outrage, politicking and we-have-to-convict-someone going on that he was found guilty anyway.

I'd heard of a similar one about two, three years ago, where some (legal) porn popups wound up on a school computer because, well, that stuff gets on sometimes when a network's ineptly maintained. The teacher was successfully charged with a couple of dozen counts of child abuse, one for each student in the classroom at the time, and sentenced to something ridiculous like fifteen years in prison. She fought that and won on appeal, but of course will never, ever be allowed to teach again despite a clean record.

Shit that was a mistake. Fucking public defender, you know a rich guy with a high priced lawyer would have had that shit thrown out.

This guy came within a hair of going to prison:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9028516

Another reason to follow best practices and keep your computer secure.

But perhaps the worst part is they can't sue to recover the money they spent defending themselves, even though he was wrongfully charged. From the article:

"Fiola and his wife fought the case, spending $250,000 on legal fees. They liquidated their savings, took a second mortgage and sold their car."
...

The Fiolas say they have health problems from the stress of the case. They say they've talked to dozens of lawyers but can't get one to sue the state, because of a cap on the amount they can recover."

From the article, it appears they live in MA. Anyone know what the cap is in MA for suing the state?


"Another reason to follow best practices and keep your computer secure."

Abso-fricking-lutely. This CANNOT be stressed enough. The fact that it's still happening, especially given all the info available on the web regarding how to protect your computer from becoming infected with viruses, malware, etc., still amazes me. Then again, most people probably run Windows and as such, assume that running a firewall, a virus scanner, and applying updates is all they need to do. Unfortunately, all too often, that's not enough.

Just one more reason I'm glad I run Linux and have for the past 12 years. I really can't imagine running anything else.

Then if they download it, call the feds in on them.

If you deliver it you be in trouble too.

Did you know that if you receive child porn in your e-mail inbox from a vengeful ex and you print it out immediately (including all header info, date, time, etc.) and take it to the police, YOU can (and probably will) be arrested for Possession of Child Pornography? Doesn't matter how you got it, doesn't matter that you were just bringing it to the cops--you had it in your possession. It happened to a friend of ours--a gay man whose ex-boyfriend sent him a child porn image via e-mail just to be an asshole. Of course, it didn't help that this is West Virginia and Will's a gay young adult man. Will printed everything out and took it to the police, but was unable to prove that his ex was the one who sent it to him (ex used an anonymous fake-name Hotmail account and accessed it via a Starbucks wi-fi next door to his dorm.) Will was arrested (and convicted) of possession of child pornography.

Will didn't serve any jail time--his sentence was suspended, thank goodness--but even though the judge expressed sympathy, he stated that the law is the law. Will "possessed it" when he screenshotted the e-mail (including the image) and saved the screenshot on his desktop to print it out, and then again when he "possessed" the printout itself as he walked right into the police station and handed it over. His "intent" didn't matter. Our state's Good Samaritan laws simply did not apply in this situation. He's on the sex offender registry now, and has been harassed more than once by asshole customers who march right to his manager and loudly ask if they realize that they have a "pedophile" working for them. Will's parents have spent enormous amounts of money appealing his conviction and pleading his cause to the Governor of the state, trying to get him pardoned because of how it all happened and the unfairness of the situation. No luck so far. Apparently nobody wants to help someone who's associated with "child porn," even if that someone was only trying to do the right thing.

I am 100% against child pornography, but we HAVE to do something about these vague and overly-broad possession laws. How many people back away from accidentally-discovered child porn because they're too scared of ending up like Will to do the right thing and report it? Many people don't even know HOW to report it, and are (again) too scared to Google it for fear that their Google searches will be traced back to them or somehow used against them if the police get the "wrong idea." Practically nobody is willing to report it other than anonymously sending a URL--images sent through e-mail are usually deleted out of terror, because how can you "prove" that you didn't ASK someone to send you that?

It's good that people are afraid of the consequences of being associated with child porn, but it ceases being "good" when people are SO scared that they don't feel safe reporting it. And yes, reporting CAN be dangerous. Just ask Will. Sensible laws, folks. We need them badly if we really want to fight this scourge.

they are have witnessed.

I am completely anti-child porn, but why aren't there any measures to protect a person if stuff accidentally downloads on their computer? And what if someone wanted to just get a person and loaded some onto their computer at work when they were not around? It is so strange! I know that a person in our community just lost a big job with the city, justifiably for misuse of funds, but after she was run out now it is scrawled all over the paper that "adult materials" were found on her lap top. Was this something real or a little law suite prevention?????? How can you know?

As against child porn as I am, I am also against people suffering from false accusations or set ups. Scary stuff.

How would the FBI know that this guy had downloaded the material unless he was a heavy user. The odds of this guy getting caught for downloading images once off of Limewire are astronomically low.

which was in fact erased soon after downloaded.

Fun fact: JPEG images can hide other files inside them. An innocuous-looking picture of kitties could have naked kids embedded within.

Remember that when your kids use Google Images, folks :hi:

The FBI could have well investigated the computer that he (and probably a few others) downloaded the file from and went after everyone they could find in the logs.

Or, the file he downloaded was on an FBI computer to begin with as part of a honeypot operation.

I'm currently serving on a federal grand jury and two of our first cases were in regards to child porn. The prosecuting attorneys say that one of the ways to prove that it is not an accident is by the number of images. They will go after someone who has a large enough number so it leaves little doubt that it was an accident. Not only that, they can find out exactly what he did by way computer forensics.

We got quite an education about how this is all done and how they track these people.

Plus the guy pleaded guilty. If he was really innocent, he would have fought this tooth and nail. Everyone knows that this label will pretty much destroy his life.

The prosecution would have laid out all sorts of deals like this- a large number of images in a compressed package for example- and the kid wouldn't have stood a chance.

It makes no sense to take the deal if it was truly an accident. There are ways to make sure he didn't do this by accident and this guy knows it. He's going to proclaim he was innocent all the while he's admitting his guilt.

If it was in one file (and there is nothing to indicate that it was) the prosecution probably wouldn't have gone after the guy.

He likes child porn and he got caught with it. He admitted his guilt. Case closed.

packaged and compressed.

It could easily look as though he'd done this over time intentionally- and had it been presented that way, an American jury would have been unlikely to have given him the benefit of reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, had defense counsel brought that up and explained how it can happen- there's a good chance you and many others wouldn't have bought it.

As to admissions of guilt- American prosecutors overcharge and charge inappropriately many thousands of times a day. That's commonplace- as is the attitude that if you take a plea to avoid draconian punishment(s) you are therefore guilty in fact of whatever's been alleged.

It's one of the reasons why the nation has built and maintains the largest and most expensive prison system in the world- incarcerating more of its citizens than China, Russia or India- though at this point, it's coming back to haunt you fiscally in state after state- as well as with the federal government.

On a personal note, I take some satisfaction in that- as it's the only way a cowardly and overly retributive people will reform their justice system, and divert funds back to where they're of more productive use.

I'm just telling you that they probably have performed a thorough forensic exam on his computer before bringing charges. I happen to know a little about how they go about this and they're not going to be half-assed.

Given the extensive damage that an ADMISSION to having child pornography can have on a person NO one in their right mind would just go a long with it like this. He will be conisdered a child predator and a pedophile for the rest of his life. He will never be able to shake that label and his entire life is ruined.

If he was truly innocent, he would have fought it tooth and nail. I know someone who was accused of pedophilia and even though the evidence seemed overwhelming, he wasn't about to admit to something like this. He was exonerated in the courts.

As for this guy...I have a better insight than I used to on how this stuff works and I'm not gullible enough to believe he did it by accident.

Makes perfect sense as to why someone would opt for that deal- and why defense counsel would have presented it- if not recommended it.

Under these facts alone, if it were me, I'd have taken the deal. And rest assured that I have some knowledge of how these things work, too.

but with this kind of charge...it's far worse than that.

just that one is much worse than the other- and in fact the files were on the computer. That alone is enough for many to convict.

The lesson for porn downloaders is: if you stumble onto this stuff, it's time to format your drive.

is far worse than just a 20 year prison sentence. If this truly was an accident (and I don't believe for a second that it was) the last thing this guy should have done was take a guilty plea. He's got more to gain by lying than being honest.

The lesson for downloaders should be to report it immediately.

Formatting your hard drive doesn't get you crap. Computer forensics can find deleted files...even on a formatted hard drive. The software is easily available.

This is why it was a good call to make the deal- no one would believe him (or care why). The files were there- zero tolerance reigns and goodbye 20 years.

You apparently still have faith that the system in the US is all about truth and justice. I've seen too much over the years to be quite so naive.

As to formatting, it shows an intent to get rid of that stuff- though you're right. A new hard drive is always the safest way with anything like that.

and neither are you, for that matter.

You keep forgetting about how admitting to having child pornography can do more to ruin a life than just a regular prison sentence. This is pedophilia we're talking about here. These are the kind of people who molest children. Would you seriously admit to being in possession of child pornography? Think about this for a second. Do you want people around you thinking that you like child pornography? That you're a pedophile? Do you want the public to think that about you? Can you imagine trying to get a job with that label tattooed on your forehead? Who would want you around their children?

Any person in their right mind would fight tooth and nail against something this horrific. I'm telling you...this guy has more to gain by playing the victim card.

If I found that garbage on my PC...I wouldn't format or erase. I'd pick up the phone and call the cops. I want them to catch whoever the hell is hurting children like this and the easiest way to do that is by not deleting the files.

NO!!! As someone upthread pointed out, the mere act of possession itself is sometimes enough to convict. If you ever see anything like this, the very very best thing you can do is back up what you need to keep and do a secure wipe of the drive.

A secure wipe involves a complete overwrite of the entire drive with random bits. This is usually done multiple times in order to conform to DoD standards. When done correctly, no readable trace of any previous information remains, but the drive is still perfectly usable.

The very very worst thing you can possibly do is to tell someone about finding it. That alone can easily convict you in the eyes of the law, even if you're actually doing the right thing.

I don't know what's sicker- child porn, or child porn laws that care nothing for actually innocent adults.

The law requires you to destroy any child pornography in your possession and to contact law enforcement officials. If you do not, you can be prosecuted for possessing or receiving child pornography.

Although many people who trade child pornography are clandestine, some of it is out in the open or thinly veiled. If you come across it, you definitely should file a report, but you should not download, save or print any images. Don't forward images to anyone, including law enforcement. The mere possession or transmission of this type of material is against the law, and even if your motives are honorable, you could be in legal jeopardy if you store it or pass it along.

http://www.antichildporn.org/faq-on-cp.htm

We're only given one side of the story here. I don't want to discount what he's saying, but I kinda feel like there is more to the story than what we're being told.

If those files were packaged and compressed, what were they titled? If they were titled something signifying child porn, why did he continue with the download? When were they downloaded? When were they deleted? I mean, I'm sure they can tell when the file was deleted from his computer. If he deleted it only seconds after viewing, that would back up his claim.

But what if they sat there for weeks? What if they were accessed multiple times? I'm sure they can check on things like that.

Like I said, I'm just throwing this out there because I don't know the full story. If what he says is true, I'm embarrassed for our justice system. But it all seems too convenient.

They could have been titled anything.

I'm just going on the facts we have presented- and it's not much of a stretch that an avid porn downloader couldn't have come across these files multiple times- and deleted them. And I can see moralizing federal (or state) prosecutors not caring one iota about it.

Gotta get on with the conviction and make the record look impressive. Seen it hundreds of times and have known DA's who practiced that way.

Also, look at it from the other side- why would they agree to such a sentence if they really had major goods on guy? It's not as if proportionality (much less mercy) is a common theme in 21st Century America.

Because they either present the side of the prosecution or the side of the defense and often never both.

FYI - you don't get picked for a grand jury if there's any risk you won't do what the prosecutor wants on almost every indictment sought.

Prosecutors lie in almost every case. They do it so much, it's second nature.

my brother has done a lot of pro bono legal work - and as he tells me - when it comes to prosecutors, they prove their worth by making and winning cases - by hook or by crook. Especially when it comes cases where there is political and popular pressure to get convictions such as drug dealing or things like child porno - a number of prosecutors, most prosecutors just go for the jugular and go after whatever they can use to try to patch together a case that might sound plausible to a judge or jury. A few innocents being wrongfully convicted is just collateral damage. The principle that it is better to let a thousand guilty men get away free than to convict one innocent is certainly not how they think or their way of doing business.

And as you alluded to, a grand jury is certainly not a place where one hears both sides of the story. It is a place where prosecutors perform essentially unchallenged,

and the prosecutors present the evidence they have to us.

But we're not saying anyone's guilty either. That's why the standards are far different in a grand jury than a regular courtroom. We can only indict and in some instances those indictments never reach a courtroom. They get pleaded out, too.

well, it's not a pretty thing...that's for sure.

Actually, getting picked for a federal grand jury isn't like being selected for a regular jury. The only question asked was if anyone felt they wouldn't be able to complete the term. Then we were sworn in and I can tell you for a fact, we do not do what the prosecutors want. There have been some we did not indict despite what the prosecutors wanted. We've put them and their witnesses on the hot seat more than once.

Even if we agreed to indict in every instance...it still has to pass through a court of law and those standards are far higher than ours. The rules of evidence are much stricter, too.

Trial juries are composed of citizens pulled from the population at large. Grand jurors are virtually hand picked to be prosecution jurors, who will almost certainly vote to indict almost every requested indictment.

While grand jurors often satisfy their need to feel independent by asking questions, it's the rare grand juror who will buck a prosecutor on a big case.

"A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" is the most prevalent slogan in America for grand jury proceedings.

Prosecutors sometimes file cases they know they can't make, so they can lean on a witness or compel testimony that may or may not be true in another case.

We were summoned to court, asked one question about our ability to fulfill the term, and then sworn in. That was it. The prosecutors had no choice but to take what was given to them. I'm a bleeding-heart, anti-capital punishment, pinko, tree-loving liberal...the last person any prosecutor would want. They're stuck with me for the duration.

I don't know about your personal experience, but mine is nothing like that. Many times we've agreed to indict, but there've been some that we have not.

A few times the grand jury opted to indict someone not named by the prosecutor. One of those, I sat on my hands because I did not feel that an indictment was called for.

Either way, it still has to go through the courts. Just because we say indict, doesn't mean the evidence is there to convinct. The standards in a grand jury room are far different than a courtroom.

It might mean he wanted the file, or it might mean that his attorney thinks a plea bargain is the only way to keep him out of the pen for 20 years. Additionally it could mean that his attorney (who is a public defender by the way) is an incompetent jack off who flunked the bar 5 times and got his job (which is generally considered lousy unless you are an idealistic type) through a lack of other options.

Incidentally it doesn't take a conviction of child pornography to ruin your life. We all know an accusation alone can have the same effect.

I'm not saying there is no chance that he was guilty in the substantive sense (as opposed to the technical sense), but I think that your sense of certainty is unwarranted.

and whether they had been copied, etc...

it sounds on the face of it that he had an extremely stupid and/or lazy public defender,
and that he was even dumber for taking the advice to plead guilty.

A year later they go after this guy? Generally they strike when the iron is hot....heavy users dloading child porn daily or weekly. Or when they bring their computers in for repair.

A year AFTER something was dloaded seems to be a stretch.

They should have politely declined the search and quickly called a lawyer.

-which of course is most people - trust police and prosecutors to be fair minded. The general feeling of an innocent person is, "I have nothing to hide" - and if thee is something that might look suspicious - most people believe enough in the fair mindedness of the police or prosecutor, they feel that the police and prosecutors will listen to an honest explanation.

Many times that may very well work. After all police and prosecutors don't go after most people they only question. Unfortunately, when you have over zealous police and prosecutes who are out to make arrest and get convictions - it can mean a disaster and a ruined life.

I know at one time all your kid had to do was type Brittney Spear's webpage name in wrong and your computer was hit with a porno virus. What if one of those photos that were popping up on your screen belonged to an underaged model? Would you be facing 20 years too?

he went thru all the gibberish of what happens. he spends his life doing this shit and has to clean peoples computers up regularly.

The longer the file remains deleted, the more damaged it becomes. If this happened a year before the FBI came knocking on his door, I think the pictures would have to be nearly impossible to view because of the damage.

Given the fact that it would be super easy to accidently download or have another computer download child porn onto your hard drive, and that you could face hard prison time just for accidently having images loaded onto your computer, why download anything?

It seems a risk even to go to those sites, if they install stuff on your computer without you knowing!

extreme right religious groups abuse and torture their children and nothing happens to them.

Yet, this guy who doesn't have a history of this supposed crime may go to jail for life.

We have some real issues of priorities in this country of ours.