Questions and Comments Regarding Concord Child Pornography Case
After reading today's article by Annmarie Timmons about Concord resident Jennifer Dunham's arrest for possession of child pornography, I'm left with many questions.
First of all, is this a single instance or is there a history of downloading child porn?
As others in the article are quoted as saying, being a female and having a total of three images of child porn on her computer doesn't fit the profile.
Careful computer forensics will show if the images were viewed or not, but they can't tell who viewed them if the computer had multiple users. Unless there were separate 'user accounts' protected by [private] passwords, and it could be shown that Dunham viewed the images during a private session I'm not sure if it could be proven that she had knowledge of them.
Ignorance technically shouldn't be a defense, but spending the time and money to prosecute someone who had no knowledge of three illegal images on their computer and no other involvement with child porn would be a serious waste of resources and unnecessary. In that case a [private] warning would be appropriate and serve the community better.
Investigate, absolutely! Monitor for a period, sure. But prosecute (barring any additional involvement), no.
Not knowing the details leaves too many possible scenarios. If there's a family member or roommate with access to the computer, everyone using the same user account, and it's Dunham's computer, she's ultimately responsible for everything that's on it. That doesn't mean that she should be arrested and prosecuted if it can't be proven that she knowingly engaged in criminal activity though.
If you're using peer-to-peer file sharing (like LimeWire) it is imperative that you check every file that you download to your computer. This is important, not only to avoid circumstances such as inadvertently downloading illegal images, but also because there's always the danger of certain files containing viruses or other forms of malware. So checking every download, whether it's through p2p (peer-to-peer) or any other method with an up-to-date anti-virus and anti-malware software program is essential. Also as stated, just looking at the file names isn't enough to detect child porn images, so if you download a folder full of images you have to actually *look* at them to be sure. Bottom line, C-Y-A!
Contrary to what the LimeWire Forum poster quoted in the article thought, if you innocently download an image that turns out to be child porn and you immediately delete it, you shouldn't have any fear of prosecution. Questioning [possibly] if it's part of an investigation, but not prosecution.
In the course of any investigation such as this, careful forensic examination of the data contained on the computer(s) will show the extent of the crime (if any) unless the user is very sophisticated and can eliminate most or all of the evidence the computer contains. In this case I'm relatively certain that Ms. Dunham doesn't have those skills.
On the face of it, it doesn't [seem] like there's much of a case other than a strictly technical "possession" of child pornography due to the fact that the three images were on [her] computer. Personally, even if they can show she knowingly downloaded the (3) images, and that's the extent of it, this doesn't rise to the level of a formal indictment and prosecution. Some kind of lesser punishment would seem to be in order.
If it turns out that she had absolutely no knowledge of the three images, the fact that she's been publicly charged and her name is in the news connected with something as abhorrent as child pornography would seem to be a crime in itself.
I'm glad that the state and local law enforcement are investigating and pursuing cyber-criminals involved with things like child porn and the ever-increasing level of other crimes on the Internet. I just hope that they're not using their valuable resources going after the wrong people.
Whatever the outcome, this should serve as a wakeup call for everyone to be extremely careful what they (and others using the computer) download onto their computers. Know what you're downloading, and I always say, "Think before you click!".
I'll be following this case with interest and look forward to hearing all the evidence and additional details surrounding it. I'm glad that Annemarie Timmons brought it to our attention.
FYI: Anyone with an interest in computer forensics (including data recovery and e-discovery) should check out Kroll Ontrack, I've been reading their newsletter for years and it's full of the latest cases and information on the subject.
