The Superior Court recently ruled that an individual who intentionally visited Web sites in order to view child pornography, but who did not intentionally save those images to his computer's hard drive, could not be convicted for possessing images that were automatically saved to the computer's hard drive as a result of how a Web browser's cache function operates. That ruling strikes me as badly mistaken, for reasons that I shall explain.
December 11, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Presented by BigVoodoo
This event shines a spotlight on the individuals, teams, projects and organizations that are changing the financial industry.
BTI provides leading tax professionals from financial institutions with unmatched tools and resources.
Honoring outstanding legal achievements focused at the national level, largely around Big Law and in-house departments.
CORE RESPONSIBILITIES AND TASKS:(1) Tasks and responsibilities include:Reviewing and negotiating commercial agreements for internal business...
Boutique midtown Manhattan law firm specializing in sophisticated real estate litigation & representation of commercial and residential ...
Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in the Boston, MA office for a Litigation Associate with 3 to 5 years of experience. The ideal ca...
