Quote:
Originally Posted by dav3
Just as long as they log the referrer to avoid ppl getting 'pranked' into clicking that link, like that tiny url for instance. Busting real pedos, yea, fuck them. But busting innocent ppl that click on a tiny url and pretty much ruining their lives because some asstard thought it was funny, no.
If you've ever been rickrolled, then you've clicked on something that wasn't what you thought it was, which is pretty much every net user.
Fuck, I'm scared to click any tinyurls now. Even though I doubt you really linked to that shit. But still, you can't tell what's on the other side of that link unless you click it.
|
The article states that there is no evidence that they logged the referrer.
Now, there is the issue of the two thumbnails. However, in the article it states that he visited a 4chan-related site. That means that in all likelihood, he also visited /b/ on 4chan. If you consider that trolls occasionally post cp there, and that IE automatically caches images, it's not very surprising that that would be on his computer. (note for the oblivious: no, 4chan is not a cp site - it's the second largest forum on the internet, with millions of visitors)
So, that leaves his ip in the logs of that FBI site. Url cloaking, iframes on a website or an insecure wireless connection could all explain that.
Now, is the guy actually guilty? Probably, yes. I'd say there's a 99% chance that he is guilty. What worries me, however, is the 1% chance that he isn't. If there was credible evidence on his HD, it would be different, but there wasn't. He got convicted based on two things, both of which could have happened without any criminal intent on his part.
A major problem in today's society is that judges, juries, law enforcement and attorneys are largely clueless when it comes to computers. A few months ago, I had the "pleasure" of explaining and showing Freenet to a professor specialized in IT law. He had never even heard of it before.