Could happen to us. Did he really do it? :unsure:

SOURCE: http://www.theregister.com/content/56/30385.html

Oh, I would be surprised if he isn't guilty, but its a damnned good defence. The fact he has stuff he shouldnt have on his computer is not solid evidence that he was responsible for it.

/me wonders if the excuse applies to the MP3's, Movies, Apps, etc I *may* have on my computer without my knowledge.

I hope, so.

Meaning anyone that installed sub7 or whatever themselves now should go free?! Oh...
:(

im just glad those charges against Zone-MR cleared, im pretty sure it was the Trojan :D :P :rolleyes:

No. There have been cases in the past where people had child porn upped to their annonymous FTP w/o their knowlegde. They were reported, and convicted for "possession", and the fact they couldnt have known, and werent responsible themselves was not even considered as a valid defense.

It is wrong not to punish the people who are guilty, but it is only fair to convict someone if they can PROVE, beyond resonable doubt that they are guilty, before their lives are destroyed by legal punishments.

Exactly, and child porn is a quick way to elimate enimies and the like, you get them outta the way quick..

Yes, its a difficult dilema.

In 99% of cases, saying your computer was infected by a trojan is going to be a handy excuse. I would be surprised if the guy wasnt guilty. One could say that in cases such as this, it shouldnt be that easy to get away with them.

Problem is, if the law is to reject a trojan as a valid defense, it opens up a huge scope for abuse. I could pick a victim who I don't particularly like, send them a small exe file, and then upload what I want to their PC. I can even host a little webserver there making offensive pics availible globally, and then report him. He could be jailed, have his life destroyed, for the possession of illegal images. Even tho he is innocent.

So it is simply wrong to convict a person unless you can be 100% sure they were responsible for what was in his possession. The problem is that ANY pervert looking at child porn can abuse this, and say "hmm, that defense worked for person Z, ill use it myself". There is no way whatsoever of verifying weather the claim is true or not. I can frame someone and with a few clicks remove the trojan and destroy the evidence.

In 90% of cases there will not be sufficient evidence to prove or disprove such a claim. IMHO I would rather see a criminal walk, than an innocent person have their entire life destroyed.

Well, the guy was infected with the trojan and according to what I heard, all of the porn files were dated a few days after infection occured, so it could be a valid argument. Most people that collect porn do so for years. It would be pretty bad timing to have just started collecting and then get caught for it.

Like Zone says, they have to prove it beyond any doubt.

When this thread read "Trojan man" I thought it was meant the guy from all the Trojan condom commercials. :P :D :lol:

"downloaded 14 depraved images " only 14 images?.. thats almost proof that he didint do it, most people who collect porn have tons of it. Why would he only have 14 unless he was just starting out but in that case they coulda found more information on that . <_<