----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Cormack <[log in to unmask]>
To: Ian Welton <[log in to unmask]>; Duncan S Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>A copy
> somewhere else, which could reasonably be presumed to result from a "save
> as" or similar operation, does constitute creation. This seems to be the
> conclusion of the ruling on appeal quoted in
>
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/I.Brown/archives/ukcrypto/0200-0500/msg00146.h
tml
>
> I'd be *very* grateful for comment on this from those who are more
> practiced at reading such documents!
> Andrew
--------------------
Duncan,
The law report is interesting and holds the view you express. The key
point, as you rightly point out relates to 'knowingly creating'. As I
understand the report (but am no expert in interpretation) if the individual
had known of the browser cache they could have been found guilty on that
count. If storing pornography within the cache enabled a definitive defence
to a possession or publishing charge it (Porn) would soon never be found any
where else.
It would seem reasonable to assume that persons/organisations knowing about
Internet applications and aware of visits to pornographic sites would also
be aware of the browser cache and its implications. Could there be any
liability for negligence if they did not .........
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Cormack <[log in to unmask]>
To: Ian Welton <[log in to unmask]>; Duncan S Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Computer Misuse Act
> At 21:02 20/03/00 +0000, Ian Welton wrote:
> >Duncan,
> >
> >I have posted this to the group as it is probably of general interest.
> >
> >An observation. Where a pornographic site is visited copies of the
images
> >viewed will be created on the viewing computers hard drive. This can
> >constitute production of pornography. A bit of a legal difficulty for
the
> >company/individual.
>
> As far as this layperson understands it, the copy of an image which may be
> preserved in the browser's cache directory does not constitute either
> possession or creation, as those need to be done knowingly. A copy
> somewhere else, which could reasonably be presumed to result from a "save
> as" or similar operation, does constitute creation. This seems to be the
> conclusion of the ruling on appeal quoted in
>
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/I.Brown/archives/ukcrypto/0200-0500/msg00146.h
tml
>
> I'd be *very* grateful for comment on this from those who are more
> practiced at reading such documents!
> Andrew
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Andrew Cormack
> Head of CERT
> UKERNA, Atlas Centre, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon. OX11 0QS
>
> Phone: 01235 822 302 E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Fax: 01235 822 398
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|