Where did you get this idea, scooby doo?
It is not illegal to be an unwilling recipient of illegal material. If a package shows up at your door with a bomb, you're not gonna be thrown in jail for having a bomb.
It is not illegal to be an unwilling recipient of illegal material. If a package shows up at your door with a bomb, you're not gonna be thrown in jail for having a bomb.
At the very least, you'd be one of the primary suspects, and if you somehow got a bad lawyer, all bets are off.
https://hongkongfp.com/2021/08/12/judges-criticise-hong-kong...
What is the scenario where a grey blob gets on your phone that sets off CSAM alerts, an investigator looks at it and sees only a grey blob, and then still decides to alert the authorities even though it's just a grey blob, and the authorities still decide to arrest you even though it's just a grey blob, and the DA still decides to prosecute you even though it's just a grey blob, and a jury still decides to convict you, even though it's still just a grey blob?
You're the one who's off in theory-land imagining that every person in the entire justice system is just as stupid as this algorithm is.
On this topic, the Supreme Court has ruled in Dickerson v US that, in all cases, to avoid First Amendment conflicts, all child pornography statutes must be interpreted with at least a "reckless disregard" standard.
Here is a typical criminal definition, from Minnesota, where a defendant recently tried to argue that the statute was strict liability and therefore unconstitutional, and that argument was rejected by the courts because it is clearly written to require knowledge and intent:
> Subd. 4. Possession prohibited. (a) A person who possesses a pornographic work or a computer disk or computer or other electronic, magnetic, or optical storage system ․ containing a pornographic work, knowing or with reason to know its content and character, is guilty of a felony․
Now, Dickerson rightfully lost and it's appropriate that SCOTUS rejected his case because he was involved in child porn production, not posession, so he can't rely on the Ferber precedent. He had the opportunity to ask the underage person in question their age, and chose not to, which would meet the reckless disregard standard anyway.