engaging at and more just for the next target case it talked a lot about this analogy that when you go on the internet you're sensibly looking at a catalog and when you order something you actively tell that site download this file into my a user have the ability to go through your internet windows tree find that file and begin image manipulating those images to try to make them into regular files well go into there and try to tell your computer save this as a normal file in another file until he decides to download something from you or download something from which i doubt their position on now your honor the real problem here is what we have here is the end executive branch determination that wan personally knowingly views child pornography on the internet that is part of that file it's a criminal statute and i would be the first to admit that that is conduct that certainly society would have a vested interest in prescribe the problem here is that we have never gone through the legislative debate the legislative process of the terming how we're going to prescribe a conduct under what standards how we're going to be able the first amendment issues and more importantly what penalty are we going to ascribe to that  never we have that the congress has never gotten together and said let's first private viewing internet sites and that is an important political determination that should be made not by the courts not by the executive branch but by the legislative bra internet site you have some control over that site you only have so much control as the web designer allows you keep the web designer mate make it so you can enlarge the picture by clicking on it and you can see a bigger image if the internet site this from a foreign origin into the country so that concern was not an issue here the agents knew that mr wrong the not affection wait an entry they can't other than a fairly physical plane on the grandstands they knew he was under continual canadian fact that we would state should be followed because its analysis on such an important point is rather person and satisfactory in our estimation the factual distinction is the change in operating system keyed in the charter as the testimony showed windows w is based upon his misunderstanding of the expert testimony at trial regarding the technical aspects of the computer and his misunderstanding of the law let me start with the law to build  desk that contains images of child pornography when the person knows that the computer contains images of child pornography  any person who's used in a computer and pull something up on the internet and views it do they know how to completely get rid of it or are they like me ignorant of how to do it i don't know what the ordinary person kno but i know that in this case the defendant knew how to get rid of it the testimony was that he first testified you see the defendant told the inspectors when he was stopped at the u s border that he went into the inner snet site intentionally brought him into his computer and large computer and then attached only deleted them now we don't know if he intentionally set the program deleting the images from the memory field that the images were in the memory you can't delete unless you first know they're there can you prevent the images from going into the couch yes by into something that's really technically it works the other way around when you go to the website and this is what you misunderstands he's not getting crack and the testimony from both the government and the defense was on this point when you go into let's say going to google and you put in words that bring up images for child pornography and then it gives you a bunch of names the moment you click on that name but the images that automatically saves the images on your hard drive you know after that i understand your question by the time you've us by the time it comes on monitor it's already in your cache so therefore there conceivably there could be an innocent  person watching the screen and have archived in his cache something that he doesn't want you know and he would be liable under the statute as you as you read it no not all because i waiting child pornography is not illegal absent affirmative access control knowing and intentional control over those images it's not enough to go in go to the web site  make a mistake and see if there you have to intentionally bring that on your computer once it's on your computer you have to do something to indicate that you knowingly brought it there and wanted it there is to store the temporary internet files as lucky expert lucky for the government and expert teller for the defense testified and this judge to goes back to your earlier question when you click on a web site images immediately stored on your hard drive when you view it on your monitor if you're not doing it from the website you're viewing it off your hard drive so you harddrive has two sections one where you store the temporary internet files and the second where we have what we call our regular what we as laymen are the average person thinks the store on the other part of that which is the right person so overall his hard drive had forty something forty something that he did that in las vegas to explain he did it because he was having a lapse in his therapy remember he had a prior conviction for that and he laughed as we said because that last i intentionally went there this was no mistake where he was looking at babies and he came across days or well most of them feeling forget that that's not a crime viewing alone is not a crime absent when it when there is no evidence of control you have to not the issue no but if that wasn't relevant to the question of did he intentionally go into that website or did he make a mistake and what was the evidence that he intentionally went to that website that's why i brought that up stored in the hard drive but when you delete it then you make it so that you can't recover it from the hard drive without doing something else without going to recycle them so it's his active deletion demonstrate that he knew the images were stored from the temporary internet files now going back to your question or let me address the defendant's argument about the operating and that context of that admission up i knew you would find something was after he already deleted it so he understood the technicalities of the you know this electronic world that i don't completely understand of the computers but he demonstrates the high level of understanding he had of technical aspects of your puter which it has which leads to the ultimate point that he knew that if the images were saved on the cache when you view them in the temporary internet file contained within the computer one from the very obvious when he said it is hotel room in las vegas and look at the monitor he saw the images from within the monitor so the very fact that he viewed the matter shows that he knew that the computer contained child pornography and second by deleting the images he showed that he knew this higher level which is not required that the images were stored now the point i'm making about that  we don't have to prove that he knew in the technical sense that the images were stored we only need to prove that he knew the computer contained that we don't need it show that he knew how and windows x p operating system computer what happens this week images the data still stays on your hard drive but there's been sickly from your button or from your memory a path that leads to where it is on your computer specific software that goes into the race of it or unless you use your computer so much that what happens is that the lead information eventually just will be written over but a person who innocently information deletes it will never be able to retrieve it out of his or her computer that's why based on your question viewing is not enough there must be evidence that a person knew that it was is not enough absolute control you have to possess the items possession is defined as knowing of its presence and exercising control to distinguishing factor between viewing alone case for the receipt of the stuff he goes to the psych brings it up on the screen enjoys it if you will and his method of enjoyment for about five minutes or whatever he used it so it would look as if he because it's not it simply isn't under the windows x p doesn't see you keep saying it was not convertible and yet all you have to do is take another step and it is convertible but i think it's the answer that you have to go out to i think mr a piece from something about another software get another piece of equipment community catch up to your computer and then you can if they have been deleted when they're in your cast yeah you could take a last extends that affirm the step and that you could tell your computer go into the internet ca