The Supreme Court of India is hearing arguments from child protection organizations after the Madras High Court ruled that downloading and watching child pornography is not a criminal offense. In January, the High Court dismissed charges against 28-year-old S. Harish, who was caught in possession of two pieces of child sexual abuse material on his
it would be dependent on what “download” means. If they were downloaded into his filesystem, outside of whatsapp (not cache for example) that’s bizarre. I’ve never seen an application do that. “Downloaded” in cache, yeah, that would make sense. But still brings up the question of why he was sent them in the first place.
edit: minor change to add “not” before the parenthesis bit about caching.
I’ve seen Skype do that. It was a weird folder name, but gallery found it and displayed the images.
Which is how I noticed it in the first place
the gallery only found it due to shitty android skill issues.
Regardless, there’s still a dependence on the semantics here. You having a cache file of something showing up does not mean it was downloaded, it merely means that your phone considers it to be important enough to put it into the gallery, which is entirely arbitrary. And caching directories will, well, cache images, because sending them over the internet is expensive.
The semantics is that downloading is copying something from one computer system to another. Nothing about intent or permanence or whether it’s a temp/cache file or not. If you did not download the file, you cannot have seen it.
Whether you meant to do something or not does not change the action. The colloquial use of the word downloading to mean something different from streaming or browsing does not change the fundamental action.
In the case of WhatsApp, which is specifically in question here, it doesn’t “cache” images in a temporary folder. It saves the images to your devices media folders in their own library. So even by your definition, they’re being downloaded. Now, this is a setting which is on by default so maybe an individual doesn’t realise. It doesn’t mean they’re not downloading the content.
i mean yeah, but we’re also talking about a legal case here, where the semantics of how it got there also matter. It’d be insane for someone else to sabotage you by committing illegal acts in your home for instance, and then getting you arrested because you were merely around them. Part of the semantics here are governmental.
this was exactly my point. The original comment here was completely ignoring that possibility, could have been for good reason, i have no idea, but unless people clarify, i assume the worst.
I mean i suppose if you accidentally downloaded something, that would mean that you did technically download it, just not intentionally, but if someone else downloads something, then you quite literally did not download it. That’s my point here.
So, if i’m understanding you correctly here, and correct me if im wrong, because i don’t use whatsapp (i use better apps) whatsapp has no concept of a download cache, and instead of using a cache, EVERY image that you have EVER been sent, from ANYBODY who contacts you, is being stored and put into a single folder somewhere on your device without the intention of it ever being removed automatically?
Even in this case, they are not downloading it. It is in fact, being automatically downloaded however, since that would technically not qualify as a cache. Ignoring the fact that this is a pretty stupid decision for the developers to make, considering how easy it would be to “zip bomb” someone using this. This also does not guarantee that something downloaded to your device, is something that you would even know about. And also, like i said, is also something the user themselves is not downloading.
I would still argue pretty explicitly, that this doesn’t mean that they explicitly downloaded the content, unless they knew that it was downloaded at some point, or in this case, regularly accessed it i suppose. But the semantics here is based on the fact that something was downloaded to your device, doesn’t mean that you did it, or that you know about it.
There was an extortion ring running a while back that would try to send people illegal videos then blackmail them. I’m not sure how effective it was, but it did exist.
sounds like the internet i know. Doubt it would be very effective. I’m sure the government here in the US would be all over it, but i can’t imagine it would be hard to disprove.