Off Topic

Zoom bomb with child pornography. What happens?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 23rd, 2020 10:30 pm
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
11502 posts
7791 upvotes
Edmonton
krs wrote: Very entertaining
Keep in mind that the laws here in Canada are different in a lot of situations from the US. A lot of that talk was based on 5th Amendment rights, which we don’t have in Canada.

C
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 9, 2012
3276 posts
1955 upvotes
Kitchener
rcmpvet wrote: TLDR
I think you should ask for your tuition back.

R. v. Garbett, 2010 ONSC 2762,

Has 2 important paragraphs within:
[45] Importantly, courts are increasingly aware of the “unique features of electronic data that make it possible for material to wind up on a computer without the user’s knowledge”: Braudy, supra at para. 53. This issue was expressly addressed by the Supreme Court in Morelli. Justice Fish for the majority explained that the automatic caching of a file to the hard drive does not, without more, constitute possession simply because most computer users will be unaware of the caching function: at paras. 36-37. In short, “[w]hile the cached file might be a “place” over which the computer user has control, in order to establish possession, it is necessary to satisfy mens rea or fault requirements as well. Thus, it must be shown that the file was knowingly stored and retained through the cache”: ibid. at para. 36.

[50] Importantly, there is a line of authorities that has contemplated an “innocent possession” exception: Braudy, supra at para. 92, Chalk, supra, at para. 23. As the Court of Appeal held in Chalk, ibid., in cases of “innocent possession” an accused will not culpably possess material where they have exercised control “over contraband material with the requisite knowledge, but solely with the intent of destroying the contraband or otherwise permanently removing it from one’s control.” Whether an individual innocently possesses impugned material will depend on a variety of factors, such as the length of time the material was in the accused’s possession, and whether the accused took steps to deliver the contraband to the authorities: ibid. at paras. 24-26.
The issue with this is that your lawyer and the judge would need to know this statutes. At the very least, your lawyer would too. Too many people might be convicted of crimes they didn't commit (or in some cases, no crime was actually committed at all) because of sloppy legal work.

Most likely the police and prosecution will take things at face value, for example: You have child porn on your computer. Now you have to lawyer up to prove you didn't do anything wrong. Both the police and prosecution are more interested in putting people in jail. So even if you did nothing illegal (your computer cached some child porn via a zoom meeting, for example). Not only that, it wasn't removed (you are smart enough to do a zoom meeting, for example, but not smart enough to remove data you don't want there).

And for a person before the court having done nothing illegal, they may not even have proper representation. Here is a reminder: You don't have "rights" to a lawyer in Canada, you only "might qualify". If you're income is low enough (like $12,000 for a single individual, or $39,000 for a family of 4), you get "Legal Aid" -- aka, free lawyer who may or may not be any good. You can't choose this lawyer. If your income is higher than that, then you have to pay for a lawyer. Try to imagine someone supporting their wife and 2 kids off of $50,000 and trying to come up with $50,000 to get a decent lawyer to fight their case. A trial alone is going to cost you about $5,000/day + HST. Not everyone has that money, so you have many going in without representation. And they certainly can't speak "lawyer", the language a judge understands. Does the judge understand that your computer cached information without your knowledge and permission? Probably not, and the police certainly aren't going to relay that information, nor the prosecutor, and you won't be able to explain it.

That's just the way it is.
How can we fly like eagles, when we're governed by Turkeys?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 9, 2012
3276 posts
1955 upvotes
Kitchener
CNeufeld wrote: Keep in mind that the laws here in Canada are different in a lot of situations from the US. A lot of that talk was based on 5th Amendment rights, which we don’t have in Canada.

C
Canada does, and Canadian do, have the exact same rights. It's under Sections 7 and 11 of the Charter of Rights. In particular, Section 11[c] states:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
The police also have to read you your charter rights, which includes rights to counsel, before they can ask you questions. If they don't, then anything you say to the police is not admissible in court. Normally if you wind up in an interview room, you'll get a phone call and the voice on the other side of the line will tell you to shut the hell up.

It literally is identical to the US law.

Keep quiet. If you qualify for a lawyer, let them do the talking for you. If you have the money, hire a lawyer and let them do the talking. And if you seriously can't afford a lawyer, just shut the hell up, maybe the court will take pity and get you duty counsel. Nothing frustrates a judge more than someone not answering questions.
How can we fly like eagles, when we're governed by Turkeys?

Top