This from my local hometown paper in Santa Barbara. It illustrates the use of search rather than subpoena to collect information in criminal cases, as well as the dangers of having unencrypted files lying about: UCSB dean faces charge of child porn possession by Melissa Grace News-Press Staff Writer UCSB Dean David M. Kohl, under investigation for misues of universify funds, is facing a more embarrassing charge - possession of child pornography. While searching Koh's home for evidence in the investigation into the dean's alleged misuse of about $20,000 in fees charged to students applying to medical schools, campus police discovered photographs in Koh's computer files depicting minors engaging in or simulating sexual conduct. The pictures were downloaded by the 52-year-old professor into his computer from the Internet. his lawyer said Kohl was unaware of the contents until he opened the unsolicited files, which were sent by an Internet user whom Kohl does not know by name. Kohl has no criminal record, and because of that the pornography charge was filed as a misdemeanor, according to the District Attorney's Office. No charges have been filed against Kohl for his possible misuse of university funds. The police found two computer disks, with approximately 15 files containing the sexually explicit, graphic material, said Stanley M. Roden, one of Kohl's lawyers. [...] Roden explained that Kohl had been exploring what are known as chat rooms on America Online when he was approached by another user and asked if he was interested in seeing unspecified files. "David never showed, disseminated, paid for, asked for, or looked at them again," said his attorney. [...] Possession of child pornography locally is an unusual charge according to campus and city police and watchdog groups for the Internet and child pornography laws. "There have been no arrests here for child pornography over the last 10 years," said Santa Barbara Police Department Lt. Nick Katzenstein. The university police department's chief, John L. MacPherson, said he has never before had a complaint about child pornography. I also heard an interview with the lawyer on the radio this morning. He claimed that this would be a "test case" because Kohl had only had the files in the privacy of his own home and never looked at them after realizing what they were. "As soon as he needed a disk, that one would have been erased," he said. It's too bad Kohl didn't use software which automatically and transparently encrypts his floppies. Then they would have tried to subpoena the key, thinking that the floppies might have incriminating info related to the embezzling charge, never dreaming that they contained child porn. That would have been an interesting case. Hal