Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge...
by hacknat on Thursday January 10, 2019 @02:07PM
(#18876918)
They can be charged civilly for the equivalent (child endangerment or something).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge...
by arbitrage on Thursday January 10, 2019 @02:11PM
(#18876968)
Yeah, that's not the part that I'm disagreeing with.
Specifically:
> If MSFT has indexed without showing any good faith effort to avoid indexing then the DOJ can and should prosecute
That's not how it works. At all. That part right there.
Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge...
by crankylinuxuser on Thursday January 10, 2019 @02:28PM
(#18877159)
For statutory crimes, this is how it works for people.
"We don't care the reason or mitigating circumstances you have, or even if you did it. You have the $thing , so you're at fault."
(The -1's, this is how statutory crimes work. I'm stating a fact, not making ethical determinations about it. I personally think that mens rea absolutely needs to be incorporated at a minimum.)
Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge...
by jkartchner on Thursday January 10, 2019 @04:45PM
(#18878566)
As I've mentioned above, child porn is NOT a strict liability crime. The prosecutor will definitely need to prove you knew or should have known it was child porn.
Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge...
by monocasa on Thursday January 10, 2019 @09:08PM
(#18880442)
In many states, the possession of child pornography is absolutely a strict liability offence.
For instance: https://kellerlawoffices.com/child-pornography-accidental-po...