Exactly, some bad iframe could load CP files and not display them, later if someone checks the network logs they can "prove" you visited and watched those urls.
Combine this with the very specific ad targeting that is possible to pull of(like the guy that managed to make FB to show his ad to his roommate) and you get an easy and remote way to frame people
A hidden iframe was used to install an encrypted VM on the defendants computer, with an encrypted file on it, accessible using a password
Only the defendant knew?
There are also extensive file system logs indicating a history of use. That was faked too?
It is extremely within the CIA's ability to plant a VM on a computer. It is not established that the password was known only to "the defendant," as if the CIA alleging that is the case makes it true.
Extensive file system logs are also easy to generate. They could also be legitimate access logs but the VM itself was compromised by the CIA.
IRC logs are literally a text file. It would be extremely easy to fake those as well.
Do you really think the CIA is incapable of doing something like this? Hell, if I were able to obtain the password used to encrypt the VM (easily within the realm of possibility with CIA resources) I could do each one of these things myself.
The CIA has many extremely clear motivations to set this up, and they absolutely have the means to do so. They have also in the past been caught doing far, far worse. In addition the Vault 7 leaks contain instructions for doing exactly what many suspect here -- planting something like CP covertly in order to frame someone.
Or option 3, he was assigned to infiltrating a kiddie porn ring. Maybe to set him up. Many plausible explanations, but no proof of anything but his crimes.
I was not referring to the article but to the parent comment, my point is if someone monitors your traffic then it is very easy for any tech person to put bad links in your logs.
There was a case, I do not remember in what country where a guy was accused of child pornography because of his IP address and later was found that someone in police made a typo and they had the wrong IP.
Maybe the traffic logs are not enough to put you in jail but the accusation itself could destroy you and your family.
It's also a strict liability crime, so intent doesn't matter. The evidence can't be viewed except by very few people approved by the justice department, so CP might just be pictures of a 17th year old that the person didn't even know was underage.
you obviously didn't read the indictment. The claims are not some vague image found in his browser cache, but Gigs of graphic and disturbing content with metadata (i.e. titles) that clearly indicate it as CP.
I realize these claims != guilt, rather that a lot of these comments are arguing how easy it would be to get caught up in existing laws. That's not what's claimed here; if true this guy is a collector.
50+G of encrypted data, specific references to 6yo, 8yo in file names and confirmation by a LEO witness that the videos match the filenames. The videos presumably can be viewed in part (by the judge?) in some sort of closed session if the defence requests it?
Combine this with the very specific ad targeting that is possible to pull of(like the guy that managed to make FB to show his ad to his roommate) and you get an easy and remote way to frame people