question about how temp internet files work

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by gui3, Aug 4, 2009.

  1. gui3

    gui3 all the dude ever wanted was his rug back

    Joined:
    May 6, 2000
    Messages:
    9,498
    Likes Received:
    2
    i'm reading an article that claims that when you visit a web site that has an image (just a jpg) on it, "there are two temporarily distinct versions of the image - the image on the computer screen, and a copy of the image stored in the cache"

    I think the distinction would be that the one being displayed on the screen is only "distinct" because it's being displayed from system memory, rather than being 'streamed' from the hard drive.

    it's NOT true that the image exists only on the web site (and is therefore 'streamed' to your system memory or your monitor), and a totally separate one in the browser cache, correct?

    Is it:
    (1) Web Page --> Cache --> system memory --> monitor
    or
    (2) Web Page --> system memory --> monitor, with a separate copy to cache?
    or
    something else?


    the reason why i'm asking:
    i'm investigating a guy who went to some web sites to view child porn. he admitted that. but it's only in his temp files, nowhere else. i'm thinking that the statement from the article i quoted above is making a bad analogy - as if viewing a web page was like looking in a store window - you can see it, but everything remains on the other side of the window.

    AND, if you want to have a whole discussion about the subject matter of the case, this isn't the thread for it. i'm not typing out any further details.
     
  2. 7960

    7960 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    60,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New England
    when you view a page it also puts copies of the files in the temporary files folder, so an analogy might be that when you "look through the window, someone slips a copy of that view into your pocket."

    the process is designed to speed up your next visit...if the pictures are the same then they load from cache so you can avoid having to download them again. notice that word, download. the pictures are downloaded to the PC, so when you go back, only the things that have not changed are downloaded. you can even go get them from the temp folder and view them if you want...the entire file is there, downloaded, on the PC.



    you're still on this, huh? is he trying to use some linguistic slight of hand to say he never "possessed" the files or something?
     
  3. gui3

    gui3 all the dude ever wanted was his rug back

    Joined:
    May 6, 2000
    Messages:
    9,498
    Likes Received:
    2
    i understand this much, but im unclear about *exactly* what happens the *first time* you view a page, in case things get that nitpicky. you said it "also" puts a copy in temp files - so is it more like the (2) thing i wrote out above?

    Yes - these things take time.
    In these types of cases, the defense has traditionally been something like "i didn't right-click-save-as, and i didn't know the computer saved temp files, so i didn't knowingly possess it." across the country, different courts have ruled different thigns. but again - i'm not able to talk about the case at all. it's always a good idea to research these types of things fully so you can't get blindsided by BS later down the road.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2009
  4. 7960

    7960 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    60,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New England
    yes, more like #2.

    you click a link
    the page begins to "load"...that means everything that's going to be displayed is downloaded
    the page is sent to the screen, and copies of everything are sent to cache (temp folder)

    I thought ignorance wasn't an excuse. Whether he knew it or not should be immaterial.

    Any chance you'll let us know the outcome of the trial (if there is one)?
     
  5. gui3

    gui3 all the dude ever wanted was his rug back

    Joined:
    May 6, 2000
    Messages:
    9,498
    Likes Received:
    2
    ok, thanks.

    ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. you can't say "i didn't know X was illegal"
    but, if a statute requires that you do or possess something "knowingly" then it is a defense.

    and, sure. but i can only discuss what's happening with something after the case is done. i've done that before on two occasions, but both times i got a million people accusing me of lying. par for the course on the internet, i guess.
     

Share This Page