# Viruses can now plant child porn on unsuspecting PC's **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 12, 2009, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251 "2009-11-12T01:21:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kidneyfailure](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9f8e36/32.png) [@kidneyfailure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidneyfailure)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/21 "2009-11-14T23:12:03Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Have you ever seen the movies american beauty, romeo & Juliet, Lolita or traffic? If so, you could legally be considered a child pornography consumer under the child pornography prevention act of 1996 (which was struck down in 2002 for being too broad). Well, if it was struck down then what’s point of mentioning it? ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/22 "2009-11-14T23:54:19Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I think there was a federal law last decade which rescinded the concept of ‘art’ as a defense in child pornography. Pornography could be excused if it had ‘artistic, cultural or social merit’ (something like that) but the law passed rescinded that. So all books and films that reference child porn are now illegal. > > Which means (I think) that everyone who has seen the napalm photo from Vietnam (with the naked pre-pubescent girl) or read the works of Shakespeare, or seen the movie american beauty is a pedophile. Are you sure this applies to books? The laws prohibiting child pornography are only constitutional because the government has a compelling interest in protecting children, and the only way it can do that is to ban pictures of naked children. If there is no actual minor getting naked for a photo or video then there are no children to protect. I would think that such a law would be unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![pope\_hentai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@pope\_hentai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pope_hentai)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/23 "2009-11-16T06:16:33Z")
> [@kidneyfailure](#): > > Well, if it was struck down then what’s point of mentioning it? because it shows that hysteria of that caliber can and HAS happened. ---
**Author:** ![Leah\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/57b2e6/32.png) [@Leah\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leah_M)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/24 "2009-11-16T10:19:06Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > Are you sure this applies to books? The laws prohibiting child pornography are only constitutional because the government has a compelling interest in protecting children, and the only way it can do that is to ban pictures of naked children. If there is no actual minor getting naked for a photo or video then there are no children to protect. I would think that such a law would be unconstitutional. I’d like to mention [this case](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/), which is fairly recent, regarding Christopher Handley. From the article: > [@](#): > > The 39-year-old office worker was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Handley’s guilty plea makes him the first to be convicted under that law for possessing cartoon art, without any evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine child pornography. He faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. Even [Neil Gaiman](http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/24/neil-gaiman-on-the-obscenity-of-manga-collector-christopher-handleys-trial/)was vocal about the case. Handley was also supported by the [Comic Book Legal Defense Fund](http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000390.shtml) It does not mention texts (books), but it does clearly reference non-photographic images of minors, which you also mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/25 "2009-11-16T10:31:16Z")
😃 There was a certain Irish Circuit Court judge who tried to claim a virus was the reason he had child porn on his computer. Still has his pension:(. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/26 "2009-11-16T10:43:36Z")
Does anyone remember the Simpsons cartoon? Bart is shown naked with his back to us, in his hand he is holding Maggie’s pacifier, she is in front of him, he is looking back over his shoulder grinning at the “camera” Would this be considered as child porn? ---
**Author:** ![Leah\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/57b2e6/32.png) [@Leah\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leah_M)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/27 "2009-11-16T12:46:03Z")
Actually, an explicit Simpsons animated cartoon was actually legally ruled to be ‘child pornography’ by a Judge in Australia. > **[BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Fake Simpsons cartoon 'is porn'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7770781.stm)** > > A judge in Australia ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography. They did only fine the guy instead of jailing him, but it’s still absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Hung\_Mung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hung\_Mung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hung_Mung)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/28 "2009-11-16T14:14:36Z")
In my paranoid brain, this is the kind of thing that can be used as a weapon against political and economic rivals. Running for senate? The other guy is kicking your ass? Or, you’re an incumbent and getting your ass kicked? Plant child porn and have someone call the cops. Bada-bing. God, that makes my skin crawl. ---
**Author:** ![HeyHomie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heyhomie/32/207_2.png) [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/29 "2009-11-16T19:14:05Z")
What benefit is created by infecting some random, unknown user’s PC with child porn other than pure shits & giggles? ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/30 "2009-11-16T20:13:36Z")
> [@HeyHomie](#): > > What benefit is created by infecting some random, unknown user’s PC with child porn other than pure shits & giggles? The PC unwittingly becomes part of a secret distributed file store that replicates data across many systems for security. The users of the porn can access and share it using other peoples storage, and with few (if any) traces on their own computer. Si ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/31 "2009-11-16T20:26:51Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > The PC unwittingly becomes part of a secret distributed file store that replicates data across many systems for security. The users of the porn can access and share it using other peoples storage, and with few (if any) traces on their own computer. > > Si Yes, PC’s are hijacked all the time to serve as mass Spam servers. Combine these two issues and you could have a real problem if someone did it to you. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/32 "2009-11-16T20:30:19Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > The PC unwittingly becomes part of a secret distributed file store that replicates data across many systems for security. The users of the porn can access and share it using other peoples storage, and with few (if any) traces on their own computer.Si That is bone-chilling. So, actual users of chid-porn can store their porn on someone elses computer and wathc it there, and the next time that someone takes their PC to a store for an hardware upgrade, they find it, call the cops and he is put in jail? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/33 "2009-11-16T20:32:29Z")
The link is broken for me and I haven’t looked it up further, but does the virus not leave some kind of trail in the registry that police can use in the investigation? ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/34 "2009-11-16T20:35:03Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > That is bone-chilling. So, actual users of chid-porn can store their porn on someone elses computer and wathc it there, and the next time that someone takes their PC to a store for an hardware upgrade, they find it, call the cops and he is put in jail? That could happen yes. It would also be possible to use someone else’s computer to distribute all across the world without them knowing at all. That would be even much higher profile. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/35 "2009-11-17T01:05:04Z")
> [@Leah\_M](#): > > Actually, an explicit Simpsons animated cartoon was actually legally ruled to be ‘child pornography’ by a Judge in Australia. > > [BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Fake Simpsons cartoon 'is porn'](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7770781.stm) > > They did only fine the guy instead of jailing him, but it’s still absurd. That’s the case I was remembering, but I was wanting input from the rest of the world rather than some Australian wowser judge… ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251/36 "2009-11-17T01:23:56Z")
It’s not as bone chilling as one thinks. My guess the real reason it’s out there is simply to give people a way, “I didn’t know it was on my computer,” when you know darn well it is. You could always use Lynx as your browser if you’re terribly paranoid or simply go to dial up. To be fair, if someone is using you’re computer to distribute spam or watch porn you should notice a marked slow down in your computer. Though I suppose if you don’t do much with your computer and have a very fast download how you’d miss it. I have 6.0mb download and twice, for some odd reason the router at the ATT side of the DSL had reset the profile to 1.5mb. It is immediately obvious that my bandwidth is cut. At least it’s obvious to me. Using your bandwidth to watch movies means a noticable slowdown for most people. But I as I said, I could see some people not noticing. As for tracing the person watching the movie could be traced as well. Of course the cops are more apt to go after the person hosting it rather than those watching it. I think the real reason to write a virus as such is the concept of “plausable deniablity” For instance, the Japanese file sharing program “Perfect Dark” encrypts every file, uploaded and download. THEN it constantly uploads and downloads random bits of files as well as they actual ones you want. This way you don’t really know what you’re uploading or downloading. And since everything is encrypted you can’t tell what you’re uploading or downloading at any given time (Since bits of files are transfered with Perfect Dark only after do you get all the files associated with the one you want, are you able to decrypt them) Since it’s perfectly legal to upload and download files (as long as they aren’t copyrighted), you can always claim you didn’t know. Thus plausable deniability This is why I believe the virus was written, if people into child porn can claim they had no way to know it was on their computer, they can make a plausable claim as such [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/viruses-can-now-plant-child-porn-on-unsuspecting-pcs/517251.md?page=1)