[UnsinkableMollyBrown]

You're forgetting that even if the police recover piles and piles of child porn, the defendent can claim that he created it all via computer. Then the police would have to prove he didn't - which is vitually impossible according to computer forensic standards.

[Lurking Libertarian]

You're forgetting that even if the police recover piles and piles of child porn, the defendent can claim that he created it all via computer. Then the police would have to prove he didn't - which is vitually impossible according to computer forensic standards.

You must not have read the decision you're criticizing, because Justice Thomas's opinion addresses this issue directly. He says that, under current technology, it is possible to tell computer-generated images from real ones, and that, if technology ever makes that impossible, it would be constitutional for Congress to put the burden on the defendant to prove that his image is virtual, not real.

[steve-b]

You're forgetting that even if the police recover piles and piles of child porn, the defendent can claim that he created it all via computer. Then the police would have to prove he didn't - which is vitually impossible according to computer forensic standards.

Don't be an idiot. It is, in fact, trivial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt -- just sit the alleged perp in front of a computer and see what he can "create" from scratch.

That's exactly how a Dutch painter, accused of helping the Nazis steal the nation's art treasures, proved that he was merely guilty of forgery.