This is off topic from the SOP issue, but if you are interested in determining ages you might consider contacting
In a recent case I had a defense attorney ask questions about duplicate images. The enhancements to our laws depend on the number of images an individual has. Our law does not specify duplicate or unique images. If your laws don't specify plan on that argument being made if you have several duplicates of the same image.
Cheers!
You must be talking about the local system in TN, in the Federal system duplicate pics are most often stipulated to and don't count towards the original charging amount and do not hurt in any attempt for a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines.
You must be talking about the local system in TN, in the Federal system duplicate pics are most often stipulated to and don't count towards the original charging amount and do not hurt in any attempt for a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines.
Not to drag this off topic.. But what happens if the DUPLICATES are in different folders? I am sure this is really a prosecutorial issue and the AUSA in the Area could push either way… but was just wondering..
I know this relates to the UK but am unsure whether it crosses over into USA law but If a user creates an illegal image in a folder that is an offence of "Making an illegal image". If he/she then copies or moves the image to another folder then that can be classed as another seperate offence of making an illegal image even though it may be the same picture.
SOPs should be based on scientific facts, which could -for instance- be based on forensic anthropologists or pediatricians’ evaluation. If it is to be written down in SOP, this fact should be put in SOP that “age estimation of persons in digital images can not be made just by looking at the picture as the age of persons are influenced by some genetic and environmental factors. So, no precise age estimation should be made in the first place, rather supportive data about user’s intention for obtaining underage content should be shown.
As a computer forensics examiner and an ISO 17025 accreditation auditor, I have also attended classes in forensic anthropology department, and the professors agree that you can not precisely estimate the age of a person in a computer image, especially if the person seems to be after puberty stage. If puberty indications are present then he/she could actually be of any age from 11 up to 16 for girls and 12 up to 18 for boys depending on their genetic heritage and environmental conditions. And you would never be able to know to what extent the person's growth pattern was influenced by their genetic or environmental conditions. This is why age estimation on computer screen can not be made scientifically. So, you can only determine whether or not he/she is before or after puberty.
If persons in some indecent images do not have pubertal indications, it is highly likely that they are underage. So, it won’t matter what age they actually are since no further investigation is required to verify that they are children who are yet to reach the onset of the puberty. Visible pubertal indications would be breast maturation in girls, testicular and penile maturation in boys, and pubertal hair in both boys and girls.
Anyway, one indecent image file(e.g gif file) in temporary internet files –without any other similar content within the rest of the hard drive- would not provide enough grounds to conclude that the user was specifically after those content, because, any non-user initiated pop-up screen, a malicious code, or by some spyware, which might have been beyond user's control might have caused that file to be copied in the hard drive. So, you should also look for supportive data that shows the user has knowingly searched for those content, or he did not avoid closing down such content and kept on his/her visit to that page.
You should also check if user has had any big-size file of such content(e.g video files) in folders other than temporary internet files which he can not allege being copied onto his computer by itself - beyond his control(passive storage).
As a result, computer forensics examiners -without any training in human growth and development- should avoid making age estimation of a person from a computer image file and should only conclude the person in the image could be an underage only and only if person in image clearly lacks any pubertal indications.