Are Search Terms and Results Porn?

My question involves criminal law for the state of: D.C.

long story short.(not really) (please let me know if you need more information) I was viewing Youtube and google video sites one afternoon on my work computer (I know that was really really stupid by itself) I was looking at bikini clad females and one of my searches caught the attention of the IT department.

One of the things that caught the attention of the IT department was the search on Google and Youtube was for "panties" "arab girls" "teen panties" and "preteen panties" exactly.

While these searches never really came up with anything you would consider porn but only things as ... girls dancing, girls in pools and just well girls but nothing nude and nothing terribly weird. It caused them to bring me for an investigation and ask what I was doing. They showed me pictures of girls dancing, girls doing things you would find on Youtube... but one really bothered me...it was a google search which appeared an image of teen models (apparently from a model site or newsgroup preview.) standing around in lingerie and swimsuits. (It was some type of google group.) They ages ranged from 13 to 18 but specifically they were standing in bikinis, normal clothing and lingerie.

The investigator admitted that I did not go beyond the google images and left the site right after I saw it...but she stated that if I had she would have captured the images and it would have been more serious for me...She also stated i would have seen more "horrible" links and pictures.

Primarly my searches concerned her. I admitted that I did not go beyond the images in question and I never saw anything "nude." She also commented on my Youtube search but I stated I also saw nothing but clothed individuals. I commented that you cant find anything "nude" on Youtube and she said you can if you look hard enough...

ok...sure.

The investigators also admitted that my search on the subject lasted no longer then 5 minutes and that i went on to other unrelated subjects.

During the interview they also attempted to tie me to other computers that I do not have access too and told them as much. The computers in question are used by vast amounts of the public. (thousands a day)

I have never done stuff like this before and I admitted as much. I stated that it was a foolish search fueled by massive amounts of free time and boredom on one particular day. Once I did it I knew how stupid I was and stopped. At first it was a test of the IT department's filtering system and then turned into my idiot curiosity.

They only showed me that one picture of the google group in the interview. They did ask if I had done things like this before and admitted I was caught up in an agency wide search for these type of infractions.

The other problem is the computers I use are open to at least 20 other people in the office at different times around the clock. Can they blame me for other peoples searches?


I am almost certain that I will receive administrative discipline for sure for the searches themselves. (they informed me that they would write a report to my supervisors) But what is really bothering me is .... and i have been wondering for the past few days ...

Are the searches themselves considered "child porn" even though nothing was seen that would be considered porn - including adult porn? will they search my house now? Will they bring charges against me? I contacted a lawyer and he stated that they "didn't official bring charges against me." Would they do that at a later date? Is it a crime if I never downloaded anything at all? Nothing on my computers at home?

I would bring a box to work with you on Monday for your personal effects.

I would have already fired you.

I cannot predict if your company will call the police, if the police will arrest you and/or if a court of law will convict you on the available evidence.

By the way, it is perfectly legal for your soon to be ex employer to state "he was looking at inappropriate websites while at work" if a future employers asks for a reference.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

I would bring a box to work with you on Monday for your personal effects.

I would have already fired you.

I cannot predict if your company will call the police, if the police will arrest you and/or if a court of law will convict you on the available evidence.

By the way, it is perfectly legal for your soon to be ex employer to state "he was looking at inappropriate websites while at work" if a future employers asks for a reference.

---

Thanks for your one sentence answer but I was looking for more specific answers. I am very aware that my mistake could very well get me fired and I am settled in for that possibility (though others who did similar things got suspended for 10 to 20 days) but I was asking other questions.

I know that you probably think i am lying or falsifying my question but it the truth.

Quote:

---

Quoting takaris

---

Thanks for your one sentence answer but I was looking for more specific answers. I am very aware that my mistake could very well get me fired and I am settled in for that possibility (though others who did similar things got suspended for 10 to 20 days) but I was asking other questions.

I know that you probably think i am lying or falsifying my question but it the truth.

---

And all of your questions can be answered by "we cannot predict the future."

I was not being cute. I was being exact.

As to THIS post, it makes absolutely no difference how other employees were treated.

And since you accused me, yes, I do believe this was not your first excursion into the land of "preteen panties" and I am actually reasonable excited that you are getting kicked to the curb. Further, there is no reason to assume that, right now, your computer is being torn apart by your company's IT department looking for a trail of similar behavior.

However, my opinion means nothing to your legal case... all of your questions have possible outcomes. You will just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

I was asking other questions.

---

Your other questions are pretty much unanswerable.

We don't know if your employer will bring charges now or in the future. I don't know about Jeff, but my crystal ball has been broken since about 1987.

Your other questions are irrelevant. You were viewing inappropriate websites at work. That's a fireable offense nearly everywhere.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

Your other questions are pretty much unanswerable.

We don't know if your employer will bring charges now or in the future. I don't know about Jeff, but my crystal ball has been broken since about 1987.

Your other questions are irrelevant. You were viewing inappropriate websites at work. That's a fireable offense nearly everywhere.

---

I would prefer we not talk about the condition of my crystal ball, thank you very much.

No searches as a criminal offense would be thought crime,we're not that far gone yet. If you had any interest in the topic you would know where to go since it's creeped into ever major photo host service. You would know how to use a proxy so IT would never see it. That's why I believe you 100%, your ignorance XD. And in fact the Russian lolis are so pervasive it's hard NOT to see them.

I'm waiting for the poor sucker who gets wrongly searched and something he picked up on a fusker site gets him 10 years. The courts are consistently behind the reality of the world by several years.

You might want to encrypt your personal computers hard drive for future protection. The free Truecrypt is fast enough you don't even realize it's running. And that goes for everyone, not because you have something to hide but because they shouldn't be looking at your computer without a good reason. Seizing computers at traffic stops is more about a witch hunt then law enforcement.

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

No searches as a criminal offense would be thought crime,we're not that far gone yet. If you had any interest in the topic you would know where to go since it's creeped into ever major photo host service. You would know how to use a proxy so IT would never see it. That's why I believe you 100%, your ignorance XD. And in fact the Russian lolis are so pervasive it's hard NOT to see them.

I'm waiting for the poor sucker who gets wrongly searched and something he picked up on a fusker site gets him 10 years. The courts are consistently behind the reality of the world by several years.

You might want to encrypt your personal computers hard drive for future protection. The free Truecrypt is fast enough you don't even realize it's running. And that goes for everyone, not because you have something to hide but because they shouldn't be looking at your computer without a good reason. Seizing computers at traffic stops is more about a witch hunt then law enforcement.

---

So, when someone types "preteen panties/Teen panties/arab girls/panties" into a search engine, what do you believe he is looking for?

This is no more an issue of "thought police" than when someone is arrested for asking an undercover cop "Do you want to have sex? I will pay for it!"

The intention is enough in the workplace.

The intention should also be enough for the police to get a search warrant for his home system.

There are things you might search on youtube that you would never search on google. Because you know you tube has limits, there is no porn on youtube, but google would be the wild frontier. So a search for preteen panties isn't an actual attempt to see preteen panties because you're not going to find them you're being reckless in a structured environment and are more interested in what sort of things it turns up (window dressing) That shouldn't rise to the spider off into seizing personal computers..

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

There are things you might search on youtube that you would never search on google. Because you know you tube has limits, there is no porn on youtube, but google would be the wild frontier. So a search for preteen panties isn't an actual attempt to see preteen panties because you're not going to find them you're being reckless in a structured environment and are more interested in what sort of things it turns up (window dressing) That shouldn't rise to the spider off into seizing personal computers..

---

yes, stupid and reckless that is for sure. As my original responder said, it might get me fired for sure. I was dumb in actually trying to test the limits of the system in that way...but boredom is the devils playground and the devil sure got me to do stupid things that day.

I don't think most of you will believe me (I am sure you have heard it a million times before) but I'm not a porn addict (though I sure wish Grace Park made some....and that was another search I was guilty of making) and I don't have any CP on my computers or even thought of collecting it.

Nothing was downloaded (for saving later) Nothing was lingered on and was surfed away from when I hit on them model pictures in google. All the pictures, including the the Grace Park ones were clothed. It was on the screen long enough to register on the IT departments sights.

It was a super-stupid mistake for sure (I know you all would agree) but can I go to jail for something like that? Will the FBI now invest in my demise?

Quote:

---

Quoting takaris

---

but boredom is the devils playground and the devil sure got me to do stupid things that day.

---

No, don't go blaming it on some fairy-tale entity. It was all you. You know right from wrong.

You know, most people who are bored at work play silly Flash games like Peggle or Bejeweled or somesuch, they don't go looking for kiddie porn. Flash games usually only get you yelled at by IT, unlike porn, which nearly always gets you fired.

Quote:

---

Quoting takaris

---

It was on the screen long enough to register on the IT departments sights.

---

That's all they need. I've never seen an employer's acceptable network usage policy that says "As long as the porn is only on the screen for 10 seconds or less, it's OK."

Quote:

---

Quoting takaris

---

It was a super-stupid mistake for sure (I know you all would agree) but can I go to jail for something like that?

---

Depending on what they find in your browser cache, you betcha.

You can't plead "It was an accident", either. You typed intentional search terms.

Further, the fact that you were targeting children in your searches could and should factor into the decision making process.

Preteen....

Jesus.... seek help. A lot of help.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Further, the fact that you were targeting children in your searches could and should factor into the decision making process.

Preteen....

Jesus.... seek help. A lot of help.

---

cyjeff, thanks for your personal opinion and not any type legal advice what so ever. What are you here for? I notice in a lot of your replies that you give people they are nothing more then snide remarks. If perhaps I was making this us just to test the veracity of this site for classroom study then you and the site failed miserably.

now...

Nothing in the cache other then what was presented in the statement above. If by chance it was something there they would have had it already and I would not be talking on these forums. There is nothing else there nor will there be. Though at least 20 people use that computer a day. I can only vouch for the day in question the investigators asked me about.

Yes, I will probably suffer what the rest of my co-workers did when they looked at porn, i will not argue that...time to look for a new job i suppose. Though the thing is ... I didn't see any "Porn" ... No gratuitous sex, no penetration, no oral ... not even a boob. There was no porn on the screen as you would commonly describe it. (you can believe that or not) If you consider people clothed, doing silly things on Youtube like showing their panties or swimming, or static pictures in lingerie... porn then so be it....I can't debate that.

There were women in bikinis, people shaking their clothed butts on Youtube, there were even videos of people on the beach clothed, there was pictures of the model grace park in undies from a magazine layout. There were teens (i could only guess) giggling and dancing on their Youtube videos perfectly clothed. (seems legal enough for Youtube)

What bothered them was the "idea" of the search and the click on the Russian clothed model site. There was no nudity, no sex at all, not even on the Russian model area which came from some google group area. They had clothes on and were not posing in any provocative manner nor were they in any type of sexual act. I did not see any sex or nudity what so ever. Yes, search was stupid and regrettable and I did it.

...I also searched for crime scene photos sites and a look at the portal of evil site (which started my quest for banned site on the server...both of which were banned.) on the same day. I know you think is disgusting and all that but what are the legal facts based on the information I gave?

Can the "Idea" of the search itself be criminal without the actual product? Are clothed individuals considered porn? Even in the situation when the Russian models showed up that are not in provocative leg up in the air poses?

Quote:

---

Quoting takaris

---

cyjeff, thanks for your personal opinion and not any type legal advice what so ever. What are you here for? I notice in a lot of your replies that you give people they are nothing more then snide remarks. If perhaps I was making this us just to test the veracity of this site for classroom study then you and the site failed miserably.

---

Nope.

No normal person testing ANYTHING would have thought of suggesting your search topics.

I can live with the disgust given to my opinions by a pedophile. I really can.

Quote:

---

Nothing in the cache other then what was presented in the statement above. If by chance it was something there they would have had it already and I would not be talking on these forums. There is nothing else there nor will there be. Though at least 20 people use that computer a day. I can only vouch for the day in question the investigators asked me about.

---

First, then you picked a really stupid computer to use.... because anything on it goes on your tab.

But let's be serious here... are you saying that if your search would have found something, you wouldn't have watched it?

So, the only difference between what you did and someone that looks at porn on a work computer and goes to prison for it is that they are better at searching than you are?

No, a workplace doesn't have to keep cutting you slack until you finally figure out how to get the naked pictures of children you are obviously looking for.

Quote:

---

Yes, I will probably suffer what the rest of my co-workers did when they looked at porn, i will not argue that...time to look for a new job i suppose. Though the thing is ... I didn't see any "Porn" ... No gratuitous sex, no penetration, no oral ... not even a boob. There was no porn on the screen as you would commonly describe it. (you can believe that or not) If you consider people clothed, doing silly things on Youtube like showing their panties or swimming, or static pictures in lingerie... porn then so be it....I can't debate that.

---

Apparently, you can...

Quote:

---

There were women in bikinis, people shaking their clothed butts on Youtube, there were even videos of people on the beach clothed, there was pictures of the model grace park in undies from a magazine layout. There were teens (i could only guess) giggling and dancing on their Youtube videos perfectly clothed. (seems legal enough for Youtube)

---

What part of "inappropriate" is getting past you?

Quote:

---

What bothered them was the "idea" of the search and the click on the Russian clothed model site. There was no nudity, no sex at all, not even on the Russian model area which came from some google group area. They had clothes on and were not posing in any provocative manner nor were they in any type of sexual act. I did not see any sex or nudity what so ever. Yes, search was stupid and regrettable and I did it.

---

And the only reason you didn't look at pictures of children was because you didn't find any.

Again, the workplace doesn't have to wait until you get it right.

Quote:

---

...I also searched for crime scene photos sites and a look at the portal of evil site (which started my quest for banned site on the server...both of which were banned.) on the same day. I know you think is disgusting and all that but what are the legal facts based on the information I gave?

---

I have answered the legal question at least twice. We cannot predict the future.

Do you ever actually WORK?

Quote:

---

Can the "Idea" of the search itself be criminal without the actual product? Are clothed individuals considered porn? Even in the situation when the Russian models showed up that are not in provocative leg up in the air poses?

---

Perhaps.

That would be a question to ask your attorney if the police ever show up.

It doesn't matter what he was looking for.

Honestly, If i wanna look at pre-teen girls in a bikini. It's perfectly legal.

12 yr olds having sex Illegal. 12 Yr olds in a bikini. Legal

There are many such sites that are operated out of the U.S. and are perfectly legal.


His best line to the police should have been

" Am I Under arrest if not i'll be going, and if so I want my lawyer"

Quote:

---

Honestly, If i wanna look at pre-teen girls in a bikini. It's perfectly legal.

---

And if you do it at work, it's perfectly legal to fire you so hard, there's nothing left of you but half a smoking shoe and one flaming sock.

What part of this is not clear to you?

Quote:

---

If perhaps I was making this us just to test the veracity of this site for classroom study then you and the site failed miserably.

---

If perhaps you came in here spouting such a load of malarkey, I would ban you with extreme prejudice.

You came here with your hand out for free advice. If you don't like the advice you were given, feel free to move on to the paid advice of an attorney.

Mind your manners with the volunteers or you will be shown the door.