Discussion:
"thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornograph
(too old to reply)
Yellow
2017-12-02 18:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
"thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
office investigation over the allegations."



What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
of thumbnails on your computer?

Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
the thumbnails remain?

Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.

Anyone here got any ideas.
Lancer
2017-12-02 18:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/12/2017 18:20, Yellow wrote:
> "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> office investigation over the allegations."
>
>
>
> What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> of thumbnails on your computer?
>
> Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> the thumbnails remain?
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_thumbnail_cache
Yellow
2017-12-02 19:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 18:55:10 +0000, Lancer <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2017 18:20, Yellow wrote:
> > "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> > "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> > used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> > office investigation over the allegations."
> >
> >
> >
> > What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> > of thumbnails on your computer?
> >
> > Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> > the thumbnails remain?
> >
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_thumbnail_cache

Thanks for that, but it does not answer my questions.
pamela
2017-12-02 20:22:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19:33 2 Dec 2017, Yellow wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 18:55:10 +0000, Lancer <***@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/12/2017 18:20, Yellow wrote:
>> > "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there
>> > were "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on
>> > the computer used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently
>> > the subject of a Cabinet office investigation over the
>> > allegations."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of
>> > thousands of thumbnails on your computer?
>> >
>> > Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them,
>> > why would the thumbnails remain?
>> >
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_thumbnail_cache
>
> Thanks for that, but it does not answer my questions.

I though the Wikipedia article answered your last question quite
well.
Altroy1
2017-12-02 19:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yellow wrote:
> "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> office investigation over the allegations."
>
>
>
> What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> of thumbnails on your computer?
>
> Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> the thumbnails remain?
>
> Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
> perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
>
> Anyone here got any ideas.

Presumably the computer was examined with forensics software? Thumbnails are
small images so presumably there can be quite few that can litter the hard drive
of any computer used for a year or two. It may be worth noting that the evidence
of "thousands" seems to be hearsay. The investigation concerned a leak and
alleged pornography was a side issue & not strictly a police matter.
Accordingly, that police officer had been reportedly advised at the end of the
investigation not to hold onto information that was irrelevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_forensics
Yellow
2017-12-02 19:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:05:04 +0000, Altroy1 <***@nothing.invalid>
wrote:
>
> Yellow wrote:
> > "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> > "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> > used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> > office investigation over the allegations."
> >
> >
> >
> > What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> > of thumbnails on your computer?
> >
> > Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> > the thumbnails remain?
> >
> > Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
> > perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
> >
> > Anyone here got any ideas.
>
> Presumably the computer was examined with forensics software? Thumbnails are
> small images so presumably there can be quite few that can litter the hard drive
> of any computer used for a year or two. It may be worth noting that the evidence
> of "thousands" seems to be hearsay.

All the 'evidence' we have been told is surely hearsay, :-)


> The investigation concerned a leak and
> alleged pornography was a side issue & not strictly a police matter.
> Accordingly, that police officer had been reportedly advised at the end of the
> investigation not to hold onto information that was irrelevant.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_forensics

I get what you are saying but if they forensically discovered thumbnails
they should also have uncovered (some of) the original pictures too, yet
that is not what the retired copper is claiming.

So I am back to my core question - why just thumbnails?
Altroy1
2017-12-02 20:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yellow wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:05:04 +0000, Altroy1 <***@nothing.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Yellow wrote:
>>> "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
>>> "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
>>> used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
>>> office investigation over the allegations."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
>>> of thumbnails on your computer?
>>>
>>> Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
>>> the thumbnails remain?
>>>
>>> Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
>>> perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
>>>
>>> Anyone here got any ideas.
>> Presumably the computer was examined with forensics software? Thumbnails are
>> small images so presumably there can be quite few that can litter the hard drive
>> of any computer used for a year or two. It may be worth noting that the evidence
>> of "thousands" seems to be hearsay.
>
> All the 'evidence' we have been told is surely hearsay, :-)
>
>
>> The investigation concerned a leak and
>> alleged pornography was a side issue & not strictly a police matter.
>> Accordingly, that police officer had been reportedly advised at the end of the
>> investigation not to hold onto information that was irrelevant.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_forensics
>
> I get what you are saying but if they forensically discovered thumbnails
> they should also have uncovered (some of) the original pictures too, yet
> that is not what the retired copper is claiming.
>
> So I am back to my core question - why just thumbnails?

The best answer I've read are the comments about thumbnails to the register
website by investigative journalist Duncan Campbell. With the actual forensic
evidence dispensed with at the end of the investigation, the remaining evidence
(if you could call it evidence) comes from the alleged notebook and spoken word
of an ex copper or two, possibly with a grudge. Other than what is in the
register I could add very little not being privy to any unpublished information.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/01/damian_green_pron_row_oddities/

[Duncan] Campbell told El Reg, based on his forensic experience:
"When people go to porn sites, it's very common to first look at
overviews, or image galleries. By the time you've gone through the
subsets to find the particular lad or lassie whose flesh you want to
see more of, an investigator can virtually read your mind by that
point. Do you click on that? If not, you might not have seen it."
Yellow
2017-12-02 23:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 20:04:25 +0000, Altroy1 <***@nothing.invalid>
wrote:
>
> Yellow wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:05:04 +0000, Altroy1 <***@nothing.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Yellow wrote:
> >>> "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> >>> "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> >>> used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> >>> office investigation over the allegations."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> >>> of thumbnails on your computer?
> >>>
> >>> Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> >>> the thumbnails remain?
> >>>
> >>> Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
> >>> perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone here got any ideas.
> >> Presumably the computer was examined with forensics software? Thumbnails are
> >> small images so presumably there can be quite few that can litter the hard drive
> >> of any computer used for a year or two. It may be worth noting that the evidence
> >> of "thousands" seems to be hearsay.
> >
> > All the 'evidence' we have been told is surely hearsay, :-)
> >
> >
> >> The investigation concerned a leak and
> >> alleged pornography was a side issue & not strictly a police matter.
> >> Accordingly, that police officer had been reportedly advised at the end of the
> >> investigation not to hold onto information that was irrelevant.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_forensics
> >
> > I get what you are saying but if they forensically discovered thumbnails
> > they should also have uncovered (some of) the original pictures too, yet
> > that is not what the retired copper is claiming.
> >
> > So I am back to my core question - why just thumbnails?
>
> The best answer I've read are the comments about thumbnails to the register
> website by investigative journalist Duncan Campbell. With the actual forensic
> evidence dispensed with at the end of the investigation, the remaining evidence
> (if you could call it evidence) comes from the alleged notebook and spoken word
> of an ex copper or two, possibly with a grudge. Other than what is in the
> register I could add very little not being privy to any unpublished information.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/01/damian_green_pron_row_oddities/
>
> [Duncan] Campbell told El Reg, based on his forensic experience:
> "When people go to porn sites, it's very common to first look at
> overviews, or image galleries. By the time you've gone through the
> subsets to find the particular lad or lassie whose flesh you want to
> see more of, an investigator can virtually read your mind by that
> point. Do you click on that? If not, you might not have seen it."

Excellent link - thank you.
Graham T
2017-12-02 19:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/12/2017 18:20, Yellow wrote:
> "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> office investigation over the allegations."
>
>
>
> What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> of thumbnails on your computer?
>
> Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> the thumbnails remain?

Some of the older Windoze used to do this. It could be a bugger to
totally clean up a pc. Every time you thought you had cleared it
another identical page of it would be found.

Anyway if the pictures here are legal I can't see any big deal.

>
> Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
> perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
>
> Anyone here got any ideas.
>
Yellow
2017-12-02 19:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 19:52:05 +0000, Graham T <***@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2017 18:20, Yellow wrote:
> > "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> > "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> > used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> > office investigation over the allegations."
> >
> >
> >
> > What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> > of thumbnails on your computer?
> >
> > Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> > the thumbnails remain?
>
> Some of the older Windoze used to do this. It could be a bugger to
> totally clean up a pc. Every time you thought you had cleared it
> another identical page of it would be found.

True - this was 10 years ago so it was probably XP I'd guess? Or perhaps
even Vista?


> Anyway if the pictures here are legal I can't see any big deal.

Me neither - I am just curious.


> >
> > Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
> > perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
> >
> > Anyone here got any ideas.
> >
Handsome Jack
2017-12-02 22:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yellow <***@none.com.invalid> posted
>"Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
>"thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
>used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
>office investigation over the allegations."
>
>
>
>What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
>of thumbnails on your computer?
>
>Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
>the thumbnails remain?
>
>Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
>perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
>
>Anyone here got any ideas.


The Daily Mail website? Every page of which shows you scores of small
pictures captioned something like "Jayden Kardashian exhibits her ample
assets in a skimpy bikini while Chloe Pantsdown demonstrates the new
line of lingerie she is promoting ..."

--
Jack
Yellow
2017-12-02 23:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:02:57 +0000, Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
> Yellow <***@none.com.invalid> posted
> >"Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> >"thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> >used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> >office investigation over the allegations."
> >
> >
> >
> >What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> >of thumbnails on your computer?
> >
> >Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> >the thumbnails remain?
> >
> >Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
> >perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
> >
> >Anyone here got any ideas.
>
>
> The Daily Mail website? Every page of which shows you scores of small
> pictures captioned something like "Jayden Kardashian exhibits her ample
> assets in a skimpy bikini while Chloe Pantsdown demonstrates the new
> line of lingerie she is promoting ..."

Or a site like PirateBay perhaps?
GB
2017-12-03 10:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/12/2017 23:47, Yellow wrote:

>> The Daily Mail website? Every page of which shows you scores of small
>> pictures captioned something like "Jayden Kardashian exhibits her ample
>> assets in a skimpy bikini while Chloe Pantsdown demonstrates the new
>> line of lingerie she is promoting ..."
>
> Or a site like PirateBay perhaps?
>


Or simply mis-typing a search for Theresa May brings up Teresa May, who
is a not-my-taste glamour model. This case really is scraping the very
bottom of the barrel.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-12-03 11:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 18:20:40 UTC, Yellow wrote:
> "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> office investigation over the allegations."
>
>
>
> What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> of thumbnails on your computer?
>
> Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> the thumbnails remain?
>
> Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
> perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
>
> Anyone here got any ideas.

If someone at that time Googled "Teresa May" they would get hundreds of thumbnail images of a UK porn star. Google filters this sort of thing be default now, although almost all adult male web users know how to get around this...
MM
2017-12-03 16:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 03:01:53 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 2 December 2017 18:20:40 UTC, Yellow wrote:
>> "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
>> "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
>> used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
>> office investigation over the allegations."
>>
>>
>>
>> What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
>> of thumbnails on your computer?
>>
>> Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
>> the thumbnails remain?
>>
>> Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
>> perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
>>
>> Anyone here got any ideas.
>
>If someone at that time Googled "Teresa May" they would get hundreds of thumbnail images of a UK porn star. [snip]

Bit surprising that she didn't change her name. Theresa May, I mean.

MM
The Todal
2017-12-03 14:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/12/2017 18:20, Yellow wrote:
> "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> office investigation over the allegations."
>
>
>
> What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> of thumbnails on your computer?
>
> Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> the thumbnails remain?
>
> Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
> perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
>
> Anyone here got any ideas.
>

The viewing of legal porn whilst at work may show a lack of proper work
ethic and a tendency towards boredom, but I do think it's disgraceful
for police officers to publicise what is clearly private information
about Damien Green's use of his computer many years ago.

It certainly isn't a resigning matter. Not even if he was seeking out
those pictures and getting some stimulation from them. No worse than
browsing holiday destinations or designer clothing from your computer
whilst you are at work.

I have never done any of that myself, I would add. But when I was in
charge of a computer network I could see what sort of bizarre pictures
the staff would email to each other to enliven the day. Some wasted a
lot of time on football discussion forums. Is that somehow healthier and
better?

I think most of us have searched for non-sexual material on the internet
and have found ourselves unexpectedly on a page with numerous photos of
copulating human beings, some of which are probably then stored in our
cache. Is there really any point in making moral judgments based on
whether you then got a kick out of looking at the pictures or found them
boring?
Yellow
2017-12-03 15:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:43:33 +0000, The Todal <***@icloud.com>
wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2017 18:20, Yellow wrote:
> > "Neil Lewis, who left the force in 2014 told the BBC there were
> > "thousands" of thumbnail images of legal pornography on the computer
> > used by Theresa May's deputy, who is currently the subject of a Cabinet
> > office investigation over the allegations."
> >
> >
> >
> > What would you have had to have viewed to leave a residue of thousands
> > of thumbnails on your computer?
> >
> > Downloading pictures? But if you subsequently deleted them, why would
> > the thumbnails remain?
> >
> > Or does it perhaps mean thumbnails as in small graphics from web pages
> > perhaps, not that I have ever heard such graphics described that way.
> >
> > Anyone here got any ideas.
> >
>
> The viewing of legal porn whilst at work may show a lack of proper work
> ethic and a tendency towards boredom, but I do think it's disgraceful
> for police officers to publicise what is clearly private information
> about Damien Green's use of his computer many years ago.
>
> It certainly isn't a resigning matter. Not even if he was seeking out
> those pictures and getting some stimulation from them. No worse than
> browsing holiday destinations or designer clothing from your computer
> whilst you are at work.

I agree 100%. And I doubt there are many out there who have access to a
computer and the internet at work who have not used it for non-work
related viewing at one time or another.


> I have never done any of that myself, I would add.

I have never used a work computer to view porn myself but I am reminded
of the time I got a to a porn site when I was searching for some
information about some electrical equipment. Made me jump!

I have also come across picture that are 'not safe for work' just when
using the 'image' tab on google to find pictures using perfectly
innocent search terms.


> But when I was in
> charge of a computer network I could see what sort of bizarre pictures
> the staff would email to each other to enliven the day. Some wasted a
> lot of time on football discussion forums. Is that somehow healthier and
> better?

That is a common problem in offices - it is OK to discuss say football,
because the boss supports the local team but spend the same amount of
time discussing a show on the telly last night and you get told off.

Double standards but such is life.


> I think most of us have searched for non-sexual material on the internet
> and have found ourselves unexpectedly on a page with numerous photos of
> copulating human beings, some of which are probably then stored in our
> cache.

I was replying to your post without reading it to the end first, so that
will teach me. :-)

So yes, as I have said above.

Another thing I chuckle at sometimes was when I did a search on ebay for
some innocent item and about fourth or fifth on the list of returned
item was a picture of a full frontal nude bloke. I was so taken aback I
just closed the search but to this day I wish I had taken a screen shot
to prove I am not making that story up - even if just to myself.


> Is there really any point in making moral judgments based on
> whether you then got a kick out of looking at the pictures or found them
> boring?

Every work place has it rules on what is and what is not acceptable use
of its computers and myself, I do not see the difference between any of
the listed items - be they banning porn or youTube videos of cats - and
it should all be treated the same.

My only final thought is that in my experience rules about computer use,
viewing youTube videos of cats, are really about preventing time wasting
- but an MP is not paid by the hour. So that is another reason why I
really do not care but an MP does in his home office, or his Houses of
Parliament office, as long as he gets his necessary work done.
AnthonyL
2017-12-04 12:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:35:09 -0000, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid>
wrote:

>
>Another thing I chuckle at sometimes was when I did a search on ebay for
>some innocent item and about fourth or fifth on the list of returned
>item was a picture of a full frontal nude bloke. I was so taken aback I
>just closed the search but to this day I wish I had taken a screen shot
>to prove I am not making that story up - even if just to myself.
>

Don't worry - it's still in your cache, viewing history, cookies,
Cloud storage or somewhere else safe.


--
AnthonyL
Yellow
2017-12-04 13:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:27:46 GMT, AnthonyL <***@please.invalid>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:35:09 -0000, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Another thing I chuckle at sometimes was when I did a search on ebay for
> >some innocent item and about fourth or fifth on the list of returned
> >item was a picture of a full frontal nude bloke. I was so taken aback I
> >just closed the search but to this day I wish I had taken a screen shot
> >to prove I am not making that story up - even if just to myself.
> >
>
> Don't worry - it's still in your cache, viewing history, cookies,
> Cloud storage or somewhere else safe.

Unlikely as this was years ago but in any case, why would that worry me?

Are picture of naked blokes suddenly "illegal"? :-)
Handsome Jack
2017-12-04 14:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yellow <***@none.com.invalid> posted
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:27:46 GMT, AnthonyL <***@please.invalid>
>wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:35:09 -0000, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >Another thing I chuckle at sometimes was when I did a search on ebay for
>> >some innocent item and about fourth or fifth on the list of returned
>> >item was a picture of a full frontal nude bloke. I was so taken aback I
>> >just closed the search but to this day I wish I had taken a screen shot
>> >to prove I am not making that story up - even if just to myself.
>> >
>>
>> Don't worry - it's still in your cache, viewing history, cookies,
>> Cloud storage or somewhere else safe.
>
>Unlikely as this was years ago but in any case, why would that worry me?
>
>Are picture of naked blokes suddenly "illegal"? :-)

Nobody seems to be worrying too much about that in the Damian Green
affair. Least of all the (retired) policemen.

--
Jack
Yellow
2017-12-04 16:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:56:31 +0000, Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>
> Yellow <***@none.com.invalid> posted
> >On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:27:46 GMT, AnthonyL <***@please.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:35:09 -0000, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Another thing I chuckle at sometimes was when I did a search on ebay for
> >> >some innocent item and about fourth or fifth on the list of returned
> >> >item was a picture of a full frontal nude bloke. I was so taken aback I
> >> >just closed the search but to this day I wish I had taken a screen shot
> >> >to prove I am not making that story up - even if just to myself.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Don't worry - it's still in your cache, viewing history, cookies,
> >> Cloud storage or somewhere else safe.
> >
> >Unlikely as this was years ago but in any case, why would that worry me?
> >
> >Are picture of naked blokes suddenly "illegal"? :-)
>
> Nobody seems to be worrying too much about that in the Damian Green
> affair.

It is only an issue at any level because it was his work computer.


> Least of all the (retired) policemen.
MM
2017-12-05 17:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:51:22 -0000, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:56:31 +0000, Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> Yellow <***@none.com.invalid> posted
>> >On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:27:46 GMT, AnthonyL <***@please.invalid>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:35:09 -0000, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >Another thing I chuckle at sometimes was when I did a search on ebay for
>> >> >some innocent item and about fourth or fifth on the list of returned
>> >> >item was a picture of a full frontal nude bloke. I was so taken aback I
>> >> >just closed the search but to this day I wish I had taken a screen shot
>> >> >to prove I am not making that story up - even if just to myself.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Don't worry - it's still in your cache, viewing history, cookies,
>> >> Cloud storage or somewhere else safe.
>> >
>> >Unlikely as this was years ago but in any case, why would that worry me?
>> >
>> >Are picture of naked blokes suddenly "illegal"? :-)
>>
>> Nobody seems to be worrying too much about that in the Damian Green
>> affair.
>
>It is only an issue at any level because it was his work computer.

And as such, it isn't "his" computer. Those images could have been put
there by literally anybody, including maintenance engineers. Has
nobody heard of hacking, for God's sake!

MM
Loading...


Database (slave) 0.002569 s
44.2031 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
SELECT `lang` FROM `newsgroup` WHERE `newsgroup_url` = 'uk.legal' (4)
0.000124 s
0.000211 s
0.000154 s
0.000615 s
2.2344 kB
2.3672 kB
2.2676 kB
9.0703 kB
SELECT `code`, `name` FROM `lang` WHERE `code` = 'en' (3)
0.000113 s
0.000127 s
0.000120 s
0.000360 s
2.4141 kB
2.4141 kB
2.4141 kB
7.2422 kB
SELECT * FROM `lang` WHERE `code` = 'en' (1)
0.000152 s
0.000152 s
0.000152 s
0.000152 s
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
SELECT * FROM `thread` WHERE `hash` = 'vQ3wPUvp' (1)
0.000479 s
0.000479 s
0.000479 s
0.000479 s
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
SELECT * FROM `newsgroup` WHERE `newsgroup_id` = '28820' (1)
0.000167 s
0.000167 s
0.000167 s
0.000167 s
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
SELECT * FROM `temp_simthread` WHERE `hash` = 'vQ3wPUvp' (1)
0.000407 s
0.000407 s
0.000407 s
0.000407 s
2.6563 kB
2.6563 kB
2.6563 kB
2.6563 kB
SELECT text_res, img_res, manual FROM porndetect WHERE hash = 'vQ3wPUvp' AND page = 1 (1)
0.000389 s
0.000389 s
0.000389 s
0.000389 s
2.6484 kB
2.6484 kB
2.6484 kB
2.6484 kB
Kohana 0.004313 s
88.1797 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
find_file (142)
0.000001 s
0.000155 s
0.000030 s
0.004313 s
0.5234 kB
2.1563 kB
0.6210 kB
88.1797 kB
Requests 0.033478 s
832.5156 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
"vQ3wPUvp/thousands-of-thumbnail-images-of-legal-pornograph" (1)
0.034400 s
0.034400 s
0.034400 s
0.034400 s
860.5234 kB
860.5234 kB
860.5234 kB
860.5234 kB
Thread controller 0.000555 s
28.3906 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
Init (1)
0.000555 s
0.000555 s
0.000555 s
0.000555 s
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
Thread parsing 0.018426 s
345.7500 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
Other (3)
0.000008 s
0.005714 s
0.002490 s
0.007471 s
0.3672 kB
146.9063 kB
68.1589 kB
204.4766 kB
PHP Post Parsing (1)
0.004333 s
0.004333 s
0.004333 s
0.004333 s
115.2422 kB
115.2422 kB
115.2422 kB
115.2422 kB
C++ Post Parsing (1)
0.006303 s
0.006303 s
0.006303 s
0.006303 s
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
Three (1)
0.000319 s
0.000319 s
0.000319 s
0.000319 s
23.6641 kB
23.6641 kB
23.6641 kB
23.6641 kB
Load & uncompress 0.001519 s
52.8359 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
load_thread (1)
0.001519 s
0.001519 s
0.001519 s
0.001519 s
52.8359 kB
52.8359 kB
52.8359 kB
52.8359 kB
Application Execution (72) 0.026049 s 0.116471 s 0.038292 s 0.041091 s
1,111.1875 kB 2,761.5156 kB 1,371.9505 kB 1,473.3672 kB