Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com at 23:33, October 15, 2016

2016-10-15T23:33:24Z

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "I wonder if this argument could have implications for child porn suppression motions, for those situations where the defendant can claim he didn't know how much information he..."

2016-10-14T18:12:20Z

Created page with "I wonder if this argument could have implications for child porn suppression motions, for those situations where the defendant can claim he didn't know how much information he..."

New page

I wonder if this argument could have implications for child porn suppression motions, for those situations where the defendant can claim he didn't know how much information he was sharing with the world when he joined a P2P network. People who have dealt with P2P networks claim that anyone going onto a P2P network must know what that entails; I'm not convinced myself that it is as intuitive or obvious as we might think, especially when the "default" setting when you download the software is "share." Might depend on what you see on the screen.

Anyway, the article by the always valuable Orin Kerr is [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/07/remotely-accessing-an-ip-address-inside-a-target-computer-is-a-search/?utm_term=.7cacbb6c7d16 here.]
{{wl-publish: 2016-10-14 11:12:20 -0700 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan Scott }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-I wonder if this argument could have implications for child porn suppression motions, for those situations where the defendant can claim he didn't know how much information he was sharing with the world when he joined a P2P network.  People who have dealt with P2P networks claim that anyone going onto a P2P network must know what that entails; I'm not convinced myself that it is as intuitive or obvious as we might think, especially when the "default" setting when you download the software is "share."  Might depend on what you see on the screen.
+I wonder if this argument could have implications for child porn suppression motions, for those situations where the defendant can claim he didn't know how much information he was sharing with the world when he joined a P2P network.  People who have dealt with P2P networks claim that anyone going onto a P2P network must know what that entails; I'm not convinced myself that it is as intuitive or obvious as we might think, especially when the "default" setting when you download the software is "share."  Might depend on what you see on the interface.
 Anyway, the article by the always valuable Orin Kerr is [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/07/remotely-accessing-an-ip-address-inside-a-target-computer-is-a-search/?utm_term=.7cacbb6c7d16 here.]
 {{wl-publish: 2016-10-14 11:12:20 -0700 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan  Scott  }}

Blog:Main/Orin Kerr on Remotely Accessing an IP Address - Revision history

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com at 23:33, October 15, 2016

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "I wonder if this argument could have implications for child porn suppression motions, for those situations where the defendant can claim he didn't know how much information he..."