Put another way, I don't see how the number 4 is different when I write it on paper from when I type it into my computer. They are different instances of the number 4, but they both reference to the same information, they are conceptually identical to each other. If a pedophile molests a child and takes a picture of it, the resulting big number is conceptually identical to the equal big number that my PRNG outputs by sheer random chance. I do not see how it can be moral to view the randomly generated big number but immoral to view the identical big number that was derived by a pedophile taking a photograph of child molestation, they are the same number, just as 4 is 4 regardless of where it is written or how it comes to be. 4 is 4 on my computer and 4 is 4 on a piece of paper, I do not see the conceptual difference between any instance of 4. I think you are essentially saying that some instances of 4 are immoral and other instances of 4 are morally neutral, but I just don't see how this can possibly be. How is the immorality transferred with the exchange of the number? What marks an instance of 4 as tainted? That it was originally derived by the molestation of a child? But it was not originally derived any more than I originally derive 4 when I write it on paper, the number 4 exists independently of life itself, it exists independently of any symbol or word or instantiation.