Jason Coombs wrote: > 34 people have killed themselves in the U.K. after being accused of > purchasing child pornography using their credit card numbers on the Web I know of at least one similar case in Italy. > the presence of child pornography on a hard drive owned by a person who > is accused of purchasing child pornography is the best evidence law > enforcement has to prove guilt of these so-called 'electronic crimes > against children' -- crimes that are proved by the mere existence of > data, I would add that in some cases even "sharing" these files on peer-to-peer networks can be an innocent act, for instance if you bulk-download them from a user, and before inspecting their content someone downloads them from your shared folder. In Italy, "trading" this type of material is a distinct charge from "owning" it. > I ask you this question: why doesn't law enforcement bother to conduct > an analysis of the computer evidence looking for indications of > third-party intrusion and malware? I have asked the same question to law enforcement personnel, but with no satisfactory answers for now. > There is simply no way for law enforcement to know the difference > between innocent and guilty persons based on hard drive data > circumstantial evidence. I agree, from my own experience as a forensics consultant. -- Cordiali saluti, Ing. Stefano Zanero --------------------------- Secure Network S.r.l. www.securenetwork.it
