[SomeSoldier]

I think what the OP is trying to say is how many unintentional images in the cache does there need to be before they consider it intentional. Stumbling across something of that nature on the internet definitely should not land you in jail, but actively searching for such disgusting content to view, should be a crime. I am not saying that NYS should be monitoring everyones internet traffic.

 

[SomeSoldier]

I know from my time working at an ISP that possession of three or more pictures showing someone under 18 in a sexually suggestive pose, or a picture that focuses on their genitals, regardless if they were nude or not, would trigger the Law. i would anticipate that having more than a few such pictures in your browser cache would indicate to a Judge that you intentionally sought out the material.
But, as with all things, it would depend on the Judge. Some can be rational, some are rabid about such things (I had heard of some Judges throwing nudist parents in prison for having vacation photos of their kids at the beach).

Obviously it's a case of C.Y.A. If you hit a website that has it, immediately disconnect and inform the authorities what you discovered. That you 'did the right thing' would go a long way toward convincing a Judge that it was unintentional.

Edit:

BTW - what makes you think the NY or Fed .gov isn't already monitoring your internet traffic? It may not be real-time, but I garauntee that your ISP has devices in place that can track your history.

I have no doubt in my mind that our internet traffic is watched. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't advocating that it be scanned like it would in china. In the artical the ruling came from this

("The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100 images of child pornography were found on his computer's cache.)

IMO dude was actively searching for child porn, so why not be imprisoned? Just because he didn't save it doesn't mean it isn't wrong?

 

[SomeSoldier]

I am nothing advocating misinterpretation of the law.

All I am saying is IMO actively searching for kid porn should be considered as wrong as downloading and punished so.