Okay, couple things on general topics of cyber crime involving, but not limited to, the charges filed in this specific case:
Regarding arrest and seizure of computer equipment following a lengthy investigation period; this means they have evidence and feel confident they can link said evidence to the accused. The accused is, of course, innocent until proven otherwise in trial. However to be clear, an arrest after a several month investigation is not some casual traffic stop escalation to vehicle search escalation to on the spot arrest. Making the arrest notifies the accused that he is being investigated. Under these circumstances, you can be confident in assuming the police and prosecuting attorneys office have enough evidence gathered to make a case strong enough that blowing the cover of their investigation is worth it.
Regarding animated 'virtual' pornography; the law as written on that in Canada makes it illegal. However, to date, no individual has been charged with possession/distribution/creating for solely animated or virtual imagery. There have been many cases on possession et al. of the real deal + some 'virtual'. The purpose of the wording of Canada's law in this regard is primarily as a tool for law enforcement to investigate smoke in search of fires, so to speak. It means Canadian law enforcement can take a good close look at anyone bringing 'virtual' stuff over the border, with primary intent to crack down on the actual much graver sort of criminal.
And finally regarding maybe frivolous arrest based on finding some grey area borderline legal evidence; no fucking chance. Not in the Canadian legal system I am familiar with. Police are far too busy hunting real evil fucking bastards who distribute and produce imagery of unquestionable and legitimate abuse to piss around with penny ante 'virtual' shit that would be questionable to make charges stick on anyway.
Log in to comment