But as I said, the internet can be very misleading. Ever did an image search on google and clicked a picture only to have it redirect you to a porn site? It happens. If the site it redirects you to is a child pornography site, this makes you a criminal. Why? Because it's impossible to prove intent on the internet.
There was recently a series of arrests in Florida as part of a child pornography sting. In Hillsborough county on Wednesday there were 4 arrests. Two of the arrested each were charged with exactly 14 counts of possession of child pornography. One of the others arrested was charged with over 1500 counts of possession.
Peer to peer transfer online is usually run through a secondary program which connects together people looking for files with people who already have these files. Much like Napster of the turn of the millenia, LimeWire is one of these such programs. P2P transfer is based entirely on trust. You only have the file name and possible customer reviews to go on when you download a file and expect it to be one thing - it could be anything. Something labeled a video of the Simpsons theme song could end up being a snuff film involving two midgets and a donkey. There's no way of knowing until after you download something about what it might actually be.
And if the police break down your door early in the morning before you even have a chance to look at the file you set to download before going to bed last night, well then you may just go to jail without ever even seeing the content in question, because possession is all it takes to be a criminal, whether you know about it or not.
A person who has an interest will usually have a vast collection of the item in question. I have about 300 funny kitty pictures on my computer along with several hundred images of flowers. Both of these are among my interests. The two arrested men (and I use the term men lightly because one of them was 16 years old) both had exactly 14 counts of possession. And I'd be willing to bet they were the same exact 14 pieces of child pornography because I'm pretty sure they both downloaded them the day before the arrest. Which leads one to ask how the police knew that the accused would have downloaded these pornographic files the day before.
With the accuseds' computers in the hands of the police, we have only the word of the involved officers about the contents of the computer. And while the people entrusted with law enforcement should be the most honorable and honest people in the world, the paranoid conspiracy theorist in me just doesn't trust the people who have a vested interest in making a charge stick with the sanctity of information.
If the police put those 14 child pornography files on LimeWire with the intention of finding sexual predators, they are guilty of distribution of child pornography. If they did it under false pretenses, putting a different name or description on the file to be downloaded, then it's entrapment too.





