Are those stories of people on here getting picked up by the cops years after saving "a single accidental pizza pic"...

Are those stories of people on here getting picked up by the cops years after saving "a single accidental pizza pic" true? I see those "I fucked up Sup Forums" threads every now and then, and can't help but wonder if they're somebody trolling, or trying to deter pizza from this site, or what have you. I see it have some effect, the posting of potentially questionable content dropping while those threads are up, so whoever is doing it is having an impact, but is it true?

Attached: winter1.jpg (1280x1024, 1.21M)

Other urls found in this thread:

queenslandjudgments.com.au/search/query?queryStringSearchText=R.&requestSource=quickSearch
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186964/amp/Judge-reconsiders-case-man-19-sex-offender-registry-25-YEARS-sleeping-underage-girl-met-hookup-app-lied-age.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

yes
gg/zKNKzQ

Good.

Call me a newfag, but what's that garble of text under your response?

How do you accidentally save cp?

Anyway, those stories are most certainly not true. Outside of Troll Headquarters, have you ever heard of someone being busted for possessing 1 picture?

Here are the 3 main ways people get caught with cp:
1. Someone finds it on their computer and reports it.
2. Sting operations that usually involve the deep web or P2P sharing.
3. The child tells someone.

And in the vast majority of cases, the filthy pedo usually has an insane amount of cp. We're not talking a few pics here and there... we're talking gigabytes to terabytes

See, I was thinking the same thing. I don't believe that someone COULD accidentally save cp. One would think it'd be pretty damn obvious. Except those old "post sinks" threads... Remember those? Where an image file had some kind of other data in it that could be extracted with a special program? When I came across such a thread, I saved a few of what I thought to be innocent pictures of sinks, only to find out that the meme started from the sharing of hidden files, and while I already deleted the seemingly (and likely) innocent pictures of cool-looking sink designs, I was worried that those threads might have been monitored and/or logged, and that by simple accident I might have ended up on someone's list somewhere. Call me paranoid, it's true, massive abuse when I was a kid, but I can't help it...

hes saying good game

Discord link

>How do you accidentally save cp?
Not all CP depicts little kids you know. A 17yo mature-looking girl can feature in CP as well.

In the unlikely event that law enforcement would, for some inexplicable reason, be monitoring "post sinks" threads and flagging people who are dl'ing illegal files that are disguised as something innocuous, they wouldn't be vanning people for essentially being trolled. The only scenario I could even imagine is that they would flag people and monitor their activity to make sure they're not actively seeking and saving cp.

Use your noggin and relax, son.

Thank you! I've been kinda freaked out for a while... I was raised (unintentionally) to see threats everywhere and to think everyone is out to get me. I've been trying to shake it, but I just can't... I suppose going on sites like this doesn't help...

Technically they could bust you for accidentally saving ""cp"" of a 17yo that you didn't know was underage. However, it's HIGHLY unlikely they would know about it, much less pursue it.

If there's no provable attempt to obtain cp, you're fine. Anons are so fucking paranoid about this shit.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. There are many convictions with very low numbers of images including cases of single images. What determines whether the police charge someone has nothing to do with how serious the offence or how bad they think you are. It is determined by how readily they can make out the elements of the case.

They would have a hard time proving that you were aware and knew what you were doing which they must to get a conviction. Unless you confessed to knowing all along and demonstrated that you knew how to get the hidden data out something.

If you do not know then they can't convict you. This is a very basic principle of criminal law. This was in fact the defence of a Tasmanian senator who was busted having sex with a12 year old prostitute. I think his defence failed because the jury decided that a reasonable person would know a 12yo was under 18 (the legal age for prostitution). I thought he had a good defence. I believed. Have you seen 12yos these days?

>There are many convictions with very low numbers of images including cases of single images
Cite one example that involves a single image. Just one case. In fact, I'll make it even easier for you: cite a case that involves less than 10 images.

There are certainly cases that involve a relatively small amount of material, but the majority of cases involve rather large collections. Perhaps I was exaggerating a bit when I said "VAST majority"

Well, I studied law in the Netherlands and I know for certain that in my country, as well as in several other countries, it's irrelevant whether you know a girl is underage. It is your responsibility, when having sex with someone, to make sure that they are in fact over the age of consent (16 in my country or 18 when you pay them for it). If you fail to ask for some ID you can be convicted.

Yeah, this is true in the US, too.

The majority of cases involve low numbers, perhaps a dozen to less than 100. I am not going to look out up because that's a shit ton of work but I do recall a case. You look
queenslandjudgments.com.au/search/query?queryStringSearchText=R.&requestSource=quickSearch
Start reading you will find cases with 1 or 2 images. Try searching "exploitation". Search by word doesn't work on my phone
I recall one case where a guys ex wife reported a guy for I think 2 images on a hard drive he had left at her house.
One case that sticks on my mind was a guy who turned himself in to police for looking at (only in his browser so no saves images) a few images. He was isn't handle the guilt. The police found 3 images in his cache, only 1 met the criteria for cp. He got a custodial sentence that he was appealing. He received an intestine correction order instead. Very unusual case.
I've seen multiple cases where people have been dobbed in by their psychologists who they went to for help in handling their urges. Many dobbed in by partners too. Start reading actual cases and educate yourself of you want to. But it's tiring and reading about all the bad shit people do grinds you down. Wouldn't want to be a judge.

Yes the Nordic countries have some bad laws around sexual offences IMHO. I also don't know much about the inquisitorial systems, I should have scoped my comments to the common law Advisarial systems.

I don't think it is. I'm fast in pretty sure it's not. But please direct me to these provisions as the us is big and I do not know the detail of laws there.

>The majority of cases involve low numbers, perhaps a dozen to less than 100.
Well, since neither of us can prove our claims, I guess we've reached a stalemate.

The only cases I ever hear about involve a copious amount of cp. I never suggested there weren't cases that involved 1 or less than 100 images, but I don't think that's the majority.

And frankly, I think you're posting that database hoping that I'll just assume that you're ostensably baseless claim is true.

Anyway, there's no way I'm going through that. Practice what you preach and search it yourself -- when you're finished, give me the case number that involves one image.

The Netherlands is not a Nordic country. Also, the same is true for a lot of other European countries. A notable exception is the UK, where from 13 upward, there is no offence if the child consented and the defendant believes, on reasonable grounds, that the child is at least 16.

In the US it varies by state, but in most states, 'statutory rape' in an offence regardless of whether you thought, reasonably or not, that she was over the applicable age of consent.

>posting that database hoping that I'll just assume that you're ostensably baseless claim is true.
No, I'm just trying to be helpful and appeal judgements are available publicly. I am not very good at searching cases any more, but that I ever was. If you want to get a feel for the character of cases they are in there. Reading them gives you a sense of how opportunistic the police are based on the evidence they have.

The majority of cases aren't 1.but the majority are not the huge hauls that the police make a big deal about. Even a couple of images will get you in jail in Australia at least. I think the penalties given are very harsh for the crime but that is because it is a very difficult charge to prove so the want deterrent. Almost all the convictions are guilty pleas.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186964/amp/Judge-reconsiders-case-man-19-sex-offender-registry-25-YEARS-sleeping-underage-girl-met-hookup-app-lied-age.html

Long story short
>19yo kid meets girl on tinder
>Girl said she was 17 (AOC in her state is 16)
>Girl was actually 14
>kid found guilty of stat. rape

>The Netherlands is not a Nordic country
Apologies, no offence intended.

>No, I'm just trying to be helpful and appeal judgements are available publicly
I appreciate the help, but I'm not gonna dig through the giant ass database to help you prove your claim.

Maybe they crack down on this stuff a bit harder in Australia than they do in the US. I'm no expert, but nearly every single case I've heard about either involves a large amount of cp and/or a honeypot sting operation that automatically gets people v& for dl'ing a small amount of material.

I see in some states it is strict liability and also in the UK for sex with someone under 13,but really that's just codifying a pretty standard reasonableness test.

Again, a very bad law that's runs counter to the principles of law. These strict liability tape laws in the USA exist in 22 states it turns out, not everywhere. Terrible laws.

I just read the judgements as they came out. There are not many each month. The ones with R. v some bozo are the criminal cases. I found it very interesting for a couple of years.

Why don't you just admit that you masturbate while reading these judgements.

Well, whatever the case, I can say one thing with absolute certainty: there has never been a case that involves someone accidentally dl'ing one illegal picture from a troll thread on Sup Forums lol

I do not think it is true in other European countries certainly not in Germany according to Wikipedia.

Op will be the first

I masterbate constantly anyway so that means nothing

Not directly, but perhaps some of these convicted childfuckers may have started out on Sup Forums in the time that cp was still everywhere on this board...

That would be pretty hilarious

>OP is all relaxed now that anons have assuaged his paranoia
>FBI kicks down his door after reading this thread

I have no doubt. I can only imagine how many people got bit by the cp bug back in the Wild West days of Sup Forums.

>If you do not know then they can't convict you

Flat out false in the US. Lack of knowledge of law does not absolve you of culpability.

Enjoy prison

Not if you don't know the law idiot. The persecution must, in general, prove mens Rea. You have to know what you are doing, eg, to be convicted of stealing your cat I have to know that it is not mine or at least be reckless as to whether it is mine or not and the prosecution must prove this.

ur retarded

mainly for this
>Have you seen 12yos these days?

really? I just posted sinks I found with google search..

Attached: choke norris.png (1280x720, 793K)