Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it suggests it

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it sugge... by dmurray on Thursday January 10, 2019 @03:03PM (#18877525)

The phrase you are looking for is "strict liability offence".

[ Parent | on HN ]