Slashdot Mirror


Blow the Whistle, Lose Your Job?

ccnull writes "You're a systems admin. On a routine PC repair, you discover a trove of child porn on an employee's PC. You call the cops. The employee pleads guilty and goes to jail. Then what do you do? You get fired. InformationWeek has an interesting expose on whistleblowers who lost their jobs, they say, because they publicly embarassed the company. The company has another version of the story. No matter what the reality is, at the center of this is a good question: If you discover illegal goodies on a machine, what should you do about it?"

759 comments

  1. Get the boss by teklob · · Score: 2, Funny

    Alter the evidence to look like the porn was found on your boss's computer

    1. Re:Get the boss by Cromac · · Score: 1
      Alter the evidence to look like the porn was found on your boss's computer

      What if it is the boss's computer? About 8 years ago before porn at the workplace became such a big deal we found quite a trove on the boss's system. Apparently he didn't realize that [delete] didn't really delete and the undelete command worked rather well in DOS on a WFW system.

      Our decision at the time was to say nothing and pretend it didn't happen.

    2. Re:Get the boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Our decision at the time was to say nothing and pretend it didn't happen"

      Wimp. I say you are as guilty as he is.

    3. Re:Get the boss by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if it is the boss's computer?

      Go to HR. Talk to them about what you found. Give them a heads up and that you may have to involve law enforcement, but want to give the company time to put together a coordinated response.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    4. Re:Get the boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: Blackmail!

    5. Re:Get the boss by Luigi30 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like something the BOFH would do.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    6. Re:Get the boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uh, please tell me now, what's so wrong about having porno on a computer?

    7. Re:Get the boss by DoraLives · · Score: 2, Insightful
      give the company time to put together a coordinated response

      Against YOU!

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    8. Re:Get the boss by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would say (unless the boss is a serious asshole who should be gone anyway) that you should gently remind the boss that his files are company property and that if HR ever found out, then they wouldn't be as lenient as you. Going to HR should only happen if he is sucking up resources, causing a nusiance, or otherwise making lives difficult.

      By the way, kiddie porn or anything else that is illegal should fall under the category of "Serious Asshole" or you could get in the same boat, because you didn't report what you found immediately.

      Also, I make the chauvinist assumption that anyone who watches porn on the company box is male; most of the porn-watching women I've met aren't dumb enough to do something that would probably cost them their job if the wrong person found out. Deal.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    9. Re:Get the boss by JaiWing · · Score: 1

      to fail to report a crime get get you in to S_E_R_I_O_U_S trouble. I say f*ck the company and report the felony (in the case of child porn)

    10. Re:Get the boss by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I say treat it the same way you would if the problem was defacement of your company's checkout page at a online webstore. It is *serious.* And law enforcement *will* be involved. But you want to give the company a chance to limit the damage that the media will bring.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    11. Re:Get the boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Report the problem and lose your job. Ignore it and it comes out anyway, your ignoring it will count as complicity in a coverup and you will go to jail. Your boss won't because he can afford a better lawyer.

    12. Re:Get the boss by Vesuvius_2 · · Score: 1

      are you suggesting that you should just give the boss a warning and turn a blind eye if he is exploiting children sexually either in a direct manner (his pictures) or indirect (his $ supports those who abuse and exploit)? that's a pretty fucked system of morals unless I misunderstand you.

    13. Re:Get the boss by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      I just assumed that since he let it go that it was just plain porn, not kiddie porn. If it was kiddie porn, and he didn't quietly and promptly bring the police into it before informing anyone else in the company, he is a child molester himself - not molesting with his own body, but assisting in the act.
      One caveat: Some of the perverts stick that crap on legitimate porn newsgroups and such, with headers that do not indicate what it is. If there're only a very low proportion of kiddie porn among lots of legitimate porn, he may have just been hit with the equivalent of a goatse.cx troll. run diskreet or something like that on it, and check him again in a few weeks. If it's plain that he's seeking kiddie porn, put him UNDER the jail.

    14. Re:Get the boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe this was modded insightful, let alone made it to +5.

      First of all, having pr0n on your company computer may or may not be against company policy. In most cases, it probably is, at least in the U.S. Some companies do not have written policies on that stuff (usually small companies). This really influences whether or not you should talk to HR.

      Second, talking to HR in a situation like that would, in many companies, jeopardize your job over something (regular pr0n) that is not illegal. Would I risk my job, esp. in this economy, to report something that wasn't against the law? No chance. Would I report something actually illegal, esp. something as repulsive as child pornography. Absolutely. But I still wouldn't tell HR. I'd make an anonymous call to the FBI.

      Anyone who has ever dealt much with HR knows that they are about the last people you want to trust.

    15. Re:Get the boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful???

      Cough.

      First of all, the OP was talking about ordinary porn. Not illegal in most countries, but violates policy in most companies. Big difference.

      The real problem, though, is the claim that it will count as complicity. Assuming that there is such a law (that is, a law requiring you to report it), the first thing that must be proven is that you did in fact know about it. If a person sees something illegal and says nothing to anyone, that cannot be proven.

  2. #1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by sk3tch · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...so you can horde all of the contraband you discover on workstations and servers. :)

    1. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Neophytus · · Score: 1

      I'm sure your boss would love you hording child porn.

    2. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would his boss care? Why would you care, for that matter?

    3. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be looking for you outside the elementary school in the beat-up black Econoline van. The one with cardboard over the back windows.

    4. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by timmyf2371 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm not sure I find that amusing.

      Contraband MP3s/movies are one thing - child pornography is something completely different.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    5. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not according to RIAA, after they read your message :-)

    6. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Obviously not a parent.

    7. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Yeah -- child porn wastes less bandwidth.

    8. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Demonspawn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really it depends on what kind of child porn we are talking about. Belive it or not there is more than one kind:

      Type A) A lewd picture of an 8 year old usually engaged in some sexual activity or pose. This is the kind that 99.9% of us can agree is bad/wrong/whatever.

      Type B) Two 16 or 17 year olds boffing eachother in some European country where said boffing and the publication thereof is legal.... All until it's on your harddrive in America, where pictures of nude minors is a crime. I, personally, don't have a problem with this kind of 'child porn.'

      Type C) Virtual child porn, either by hentai or entirely digitally created images. I'll leave you to your own decisions on if this is bad or wrong.

      So, which form of child porn do you have a problem with? Some of the above, all of the above?

      --Demonspawn

    9. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by NoTildeQuestionMark · · Score: 1

      You have to wonder why the mainpage article called child porn "illegal goodies." That's a little weird.

      ~

      --
      If you need me, I'll be hanging my computer from the
    10. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just search the article writers workstation to understand why...

    11. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by dougmc · · Score: 1
      You missed one type ...

      Type D) where a parent takes a picture of their child in a pretty standard situation, and has it developed, and then people decide that it's child porn.

      I can't seem to find the story now, but there was a woman who took a picture of her child breast feeding, and it was deemed pornographic and they were arrested. Last I heard, the charges had been dropped, but CPS still wouldn't give their kids back ...

    12. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by slaker · · Score: 1

      Er... one of my neighbors is a cop. I asked him about "type B"-porno. He didn't know, so he checked with some of the detectives at his station.
      Their take was that pictures of 17 year olds would almost never get you in trouble in the US. Almost. Basically, the burden of proof is such that if a visual determination wouldn't be a certainty - and a lot of porn in the US is of a "barely legal" variety - they're not going to spend much time worrying about it. The de-facto cutoff is basically with barely-pubescent children if the images are anonymous. Of course, if you have pictures of two identifiable 17 year olds or your local DA is a prick, you still have a problem.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    13. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't buy that. You're using the same logic as the people who say violent video games caused Columbine.

      How many people here have a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook? How many have played Doom or Quake? Now, how many of you have built pipe bombs, or made C4 in your basement? How many have gone around shooting real people?

      Guns, games, and porn are only a problem when they fall into the hands of some dumb motherfucker with poor impulse control and a tenuous grip on reality.

    14. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      How do you think those pictures were made? They were made by someone WITHOUT "a tenuous grip on reality." The demand encourages the crime. I don't look at it as "this guy's looking at child porn, so he must really rape kids" no, I look at it as "this guy's looking at pictures of someone who DID rape kids" to rob a child of their innocence and fuck them emotionally for life is possibly the worst crime...viewing the material just encourages it. Now to look at pictures of someone who chose or had the ability to rationally choose to be in them, I'm all down, no matter the genre. As an administrator, I ignore those pictures constantly.

      --
      ymmv
    15. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by zackbar · · Score: 1

      Agreed, child pron is not good.

      But theregister.com put it well when they noticed that the the US and Britain are more concerned about people viewing it than the people making it.

      I'm not defending people who view it, but it's not too far from indicting everyone who drinks because some drinkers also drive.

    16. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by poptones · · Score: 1
      Two 16 or 17 year olds boffing eachother in some European country where said boffing and the publication thereof is legal....

      What if it's two 14 year olds? Or a 14 year old and a 50 year old? The FSU has become the new "san fernando valley" of porn, and in Russia (among others) the age of consent is 14.

      And what if it's not porn at all? most businesses have rules about use of company assets for personal use. What if you discover a 20GB cache of fully clothed children? I once stumbled upon an an article on ZDNet by some geek who pointed out one of the coolest features of his new 120GB hard drive was he could now keep all the pictures and videos from "youth photographer Paul Jones" right at his (ahem) fingertips.

      Completely legal - right?

    17. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the people who make that shit should be locked up. Child abuse is inexcusable. I also agree that people who pay for kiddie porn should be penalized for creating an incentive for people to create more, but I do not think that prison time is an appropriate penalty for any kind of possession, unless there is solid evidence that the person is likely to abuse a child. They need counselling, of course, but prison is a death sentence for these people, and that should not be taken lightly.

    18. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by rice_web · · Score: 1

      So that you can take all the child porn for yourself?

      --
      The Political Programmer
    19. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that CP should be stopped because it involves the abuse of children for its production. However, CP that is drawn or otherwise artificially rendered does not (necessarily) suffer from this. Should it be illegal? I don't think it should, but many do. Personally, I'd rather have them interested and strokin to fiction rather than to real children.

    20. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 4, Informative

      > viewing the material just encourages it.

      In what way does some anonymous pervert in New York downloading images that someone probably posted months or years previous from someplace hundreds or thousands of miles away constitute encouraging anything? Be serious for a second and think rationally about how these images are produced and get disseminated.

      As a writer I've researched the matter, and the fact is that 99% or more of what most people would consider "child pornography" to be (hardcore sexual images of pre-adolescent or early adolescent minors) comes from two sources. Once-legal magazines and videos that were published in the 1970's before any child pornography laws existed, and which were later scanned or captured to digital format, are one source. Child molesters who film their abuse and pass it on to "friends" online are the other.

      Now, with regard to the former, no one possessing such images can truly be said to have been encouraging anything--the abuse occurred 20 or 30 years previously, when the abusing was just as illegal as it is today yet the filming and distribution were not explicitly illegal yet. It is *exactly* the same situation as viewing concentration-camp footage--no one doing so is encouraging or discouraging anything. It's simply a heinous relic of the past. No one makes money off it anymore--it's no longer a commercial industry and hasn't been for 20 years and more.

      Regarding the latter, yes, if you are one of the "friends" to whom the child molestor sent his imagery, then you can truly be said to be encouraging the abuse. However, most people who view child pornography view it as distant links in a tenuous chain, after it has been e-mailed between countless people and posted to websites and posted on USENET hundreds or thousands of times. This becomes a very gray area both ethically and morally, even though the law makes no distinction. Posting the material, passing it on along the tenuous chain, could reasonably be argued to be a subtle form of encouragement of what is depicted. That's an argument that makes some sense, though is still ambiguous. However, what if the college professor in this case merely downloaded the images for his own private viewing and never passed them on to anyone, never posted them anywhere, never became another link in the chain because the images stopped at his hard drive and weren't further disseminated by him?

      Well, then the idea that he encouraged anything at all through his possession, but not dissemination, of the imagery, becomes far from convincing. In fact, I'd say the argument fails entirely--facelessly copying a digital file off a public forum like the Net isn't unethical *or* immoral on its face. Yet, it is still illegal, although one can clearly say it *might* be unjustly so.

      There is no commercial industry in such material being "fed" by the consumer. That's a common misconception. The child molestor does what he does for the sex and power, and shares the material with people he deems as like-minded. Those people can be thought of as supporting him and the abuse, but somewhere along the line the imagery leaves the purview of him and his "friends" and just floats through the electronic ether for strangers to find.

      However, what most people would consider child pornography is not the same as what is actually considered child pornography in the U.S. It's a much broader category, which includes nude images as well as hardcore videos of 16 and 17 year olds which were produced legally in parts of Europe until recently. In places where the age of consent was 16 and child pornography laws stated that child pornography constituted imagery of people below that age, adult material featuring 16 and 17 year olds was once as common and legal as adult material featuring 18 and 19 year olds is in the U.S.--and yet U.S. law makes no disctinction between this material and something produced by a child molestor raping a young girl or boy. One has to seriously question the rationale there, since

      --

      Chasing Amy
      (We all chase Amy...)
      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
    21. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very good arguments.

      i've had child pornography on my computer without knowing it was there. I frequently download pornography from Kazaa, sometimes without reading the description of the file. A few times, I have received a file that looks like ordinary legit porno from the description, but turned out (to my disgust) to be child pornography.

    22. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a similar case that hit some of the national news outlets involving Walmart. Apparantly, the mother took some pictures of the kids with the husband by the pool. Supposedly innocent kid and parent stuff, but the kids were nude (they didn't show the pictures or even talk in some detail about the pictures).

      Walmart employee developed, saw pics, called cops, mother comes to pick up pictures, gets asked to sit in a room at Walmart to talk with police.

      Kids were not removed from parents in this case.

    23. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, then, the US should reconsider it's age of consent laws. Physical development is one thing, mental capacity is another--is 17 or 18 the correct time?

      Or even the handling of the current laws. Statuatory rape is considered a violent crime under a 1984 federal bail reform act.

    24. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Agreed, child pron is not good.

      A rather mild statement.

      >But theregister.com put it well when they noticed >that the the US and Britain are more concerned >about people viewing it than the people making >it.

      It's a difficult subject to discuss. Mainly the makers are not in this US or Britain and as always the eaisest to catch are the end users. Well the stupid and incompetent end users.

      I have wondered at the lack of severity of the law in the US when it comes to child exploitation of any kind.

      I have also questioned the prioritization of resources of law enforcement. But I have heard or read comments on the subject from law enforcement officers, it's not something even a strong person can be exposed to for long and burn out is extremely high or worse. I don't question the prioritization now, a brief exposure to the text of court cases is enough to quell that. I'm not sure if 'thanks' is possible to the person who rather gruffly refered me to these and pity would be insulting, just sadness and my respect that they can handle this, that they can even stomach these kinds of cases. I am in their debt for their sacrifice.

      >I'm not defending people who view it, but it's >not too far from indicting everyone who drinks >because some drinkers also drive.

      Not an applicable comparison.

      The grower of the grain does not have to harm anyone in the growing.

      The maker of the drink from the grain does not have to harm anyone in the making

      The server of the drink does not have to harm anyone to be able to serve it.

      The drinker does not have to harm anyone to consume it.

      The driver who is has consumed the drink can cause harm due to being impared by the drink.

      To be able to view it someone had to have an incentive to create it and in the creation
      exploit a child.

      In this case the consumer facilitates the original harm and consumes a product which was created with by harming a child.

      Child pornography, a direct result of child molestation should be a crash and burn offense.

      I would lose my job with a great sense of satisfaction in the same situation as the employee in the article.

      Sorry but this has to be as anonymous coward, it really is horrific and I cannot stand the scrutiny or the questions for here lies madness.

    25. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by ahknight · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, Dallas, Texas.

      Article is here.

    26. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B) ...

      Somewhere they protect older children than elsewhere. Too bad they don't usually protect recognized adults.

      C) ...

      Bad or wrong is wrong problem setup. The interest so connect children with sexual thoughts in one's mind is direct message of emotional sickness of that person and should be treated as such.

    27. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The US and Britain are more concerned about people viewing it than the people making it.

      And even more strangely, crimninalising possession of fake porn, that is made by morphing stuff in Photoshop or whatever. Then it has become simply enforcement of moral values, but still has all the force of the original laws created to stop explotation of the models.

    28. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the above. It's against the law here in the old USA and until that changes whether it's technicality that they are 16 or 17 or 20 you have an obligation to report someone who might be harming children. Personally I find it abhorrent that the viewing of something (not use, possession, distribution, or creation) is illegal but I understand why and it is a gray line. I personally think that the larger question is basic freedom but we are talking about kiddie porn here so maybe freedom is the casualty and that's acceptable to most. Besides most of the time you wouldn't be able to identify "child pornography" of a borderline nature so you wouldn't report them anyway unless it was to management for simply having porn on the work machine.

    29. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Wow, and I was excited that I could keep the the complete works of J.S. Bach losslessly encoded to FLAC on my disk.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    30. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      Goodness. You've put a lot of effort into justifying your predilections, haven't you?

    31. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      Agreed on "Type B". If someone with a camera had snuck up on my truck the night I lost my virginity, (and been really quick) I could have been the subject of "child porn" in some jurisdictions.
      I don't think a reasonable person would consider 16-and-up "children" in this context.

    32. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      > They need counselling, of course, but rison is a death sentence for these people, and that should not be taken lightly.

      No, they need a death sentence (not prison, a death sentence).

    33. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is wrong with you? Most murderers aren't executed, and you want to do it to anyone who commits thoughtcrime?

    34. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by sk3tch · · Score: 1

      Everyone needs to lighten up...sheesh. Yes, child pr0n was mentioned in the article, but at the end it states if you discover "illegal goodies" on a server/workstation. In that context I think of MP3s/warez/movies/LEGAL pr0n, which I would gladly horde.

      But anyway, glad I got everyone goin' crazy discussing the issue.

    35. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      You say most murderers aren't executed, and then you ask what's wrong with me? What's wrong with the system, that murderers aren't taken out and shot?

      You say all he committed was a thought crime? Now I need to ask what the hell is wrong with *you*? Because he was a consumer, someone else was encouraged to be a producer, and someone harmed those children. That makes him not guilty of a thought crime, but a party by extension to the actual crime. Everyone - both the producers and the consumers - involved in child pornography is a party to the crime, and nothing but the lowest form of scumbag, and should be given a punishment fitting the crime. The fitting punishment is capital punishment.

      You write like someone who doesn't have children. I tell you this: anyone who would do that to anyone's children is a threat to all children, including mine, and should be executed for the good of society and the safety of all children. Do you know that many of the children used in child pornography are abducted? Many of them are eventually killed. You would let someone responsible for that live and maybe someday go free, and you think there's something wrong with me? You need a serious reality check.

    36. Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really brilliant. The path the bullet takes is more important than the hole it places in your brain. If you are not a lawyer, consider becoming one. If you are a lawyer, drive off a cliff.

  3. unless of course... by r00tarded · · Score: 5, Funny

    you are a whistle tester.

    1. Re:unless of course... by unicron · · Score: 1

      Nice.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    2. Re:unless of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      best laugh i've had all weekend

    3. Re:unless of course... by unicron · · Score: 1

      Dude you are so my bitch. I should have your ass getting groceries for me and washing my car.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  4. tell your boss and not the police.....?? by neoform · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    why not let them embarass the company.. or just cover it up..

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
    1. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by feepcreature · · Score: 3, Informative
      "Tell your boss... why not let them embarass the company"

      According to the employer's response, that's exactlty what happened in this case.

      The two plaintiffs, who discovered the pornography, reported it to their supervisor, who in turn reported the felony to law school administrators. This was entirely consistent with the policy of Collegis...
      What happened after that, and why, is less clear.

      The problem with the other option - covering it up - could be that some children would continue to be abused.

      --
      Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
    2. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by mnmn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Boss will either just fire the employee or call the cops herself. Regardless, you should call the cops too, especially in the case of child porn which is quite serious.

      Ideally you should alert the boss first to prepare for the embarassment and have the spokesman prepare statements before the employee is carried away. Tell her, I intend to notify the cops, she wont be able to stop you then. If she tries to stop you, and you tell the cops, and get fired, youd have a lot against the boss too.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    3. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Master+Bait · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I would simply talk to the person that had porn on their computer, delete their porn and tell them to go see a shrink. Sheesh, do people really think that bosses and police are the solution to the problem of kiddie porn?

      Are we becoming good little nazis who spy on each other and use punishment and revenge as the first resort?

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    4. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, look at that. A reasonable response to the issue. Kudos. If I had mod points I'd mod you up.

    5. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with the other option - covering it up - could be that some children would continue to be abused.

      How does having JPEGs on a computer equate to child abuse? I'm sure many of us have seen the pictures of the death camps with corpses stacked like cordwood, but that doesn't mean we go out and exterminate Jews. A couple of decades ago, there was a problem with so-called "snuff flicks" which showed the actual torture and murder of people (usually young women). I can't imagine anything worse than that, but people weren't put in jail for viewing those tapes.

      This is like the laws against drug use. They really don't do anything except give warm fuzzies to the people who stand up and beat their breasts to show their concern. I don't use or advocate drug use or viewing child porn, but I don't want my tax dollars wasted on the pursuit and incarceration of perpetrators of victimless crimes.

    6. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by B'Trey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just out of curiosity, how many children do you think were protected from abuse by imprisoning the professor?

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    7. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by b17bmbr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      this isn't just pr0n, but child porn. big difference. let's say you found emails, etc., that the guy was running a drug ring, selling crank to kids down at the local school yard. or that he was funneling money to al qaida or something. where do yo draw the line. maybe i'm biased. i have two children and i teach seventh grade (12-13 yr olds). child porn is a pernicious offense and offenders should be pubished. you think he jsut say, gee thanks, i won't do that any more. look at the research on child molestors. they are habitual. they cannot be "cured". actually true of most sex offenders. but towards children especially.

      i'm not talking about some 17 year old tittie, or some 18 year old drerssed in a school uni. hell, if i'd found the stuff on his computer, i'd probably just take the guy out back and beat him fucking senseless.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    8. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't put this to the "nazi" test. First off, it is our duty as humans to keep predators away from those that cannot defend themselves. In this case, kids. I can't say whether looking at child pornography causes one to molest, but common sense would say it wouldn't deter it.

      I agree the guy needs help. But, if you think the shrink can make it all better (all the time), then you need a little more reality. For child pornography or murder, the coppers were the right path.

      I am sure the court will give him a fair shake and you can rest easier knowing this. Look at old Pete... who knows if his story was real. And, if this turns out like you want, perhaps the professor could move to your neighborhood and babysit your kids (when you do have kids). Any problems? Call a shrink, they work magic.

    9. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are we becoming good little nazis who spy on each other and use punishment and revenge as the first resort?

      Yes.

    10. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sucker modded this "insightful". Idiots like Master Bait would let Osama's cary out their bulshit after a "nice little talk". Even if you don't approve of what these IT people did, it is their full right and moral obligation to do it. NO ONE CAN BLAME THEM. The stupid company is at fault. They wanted to keep the the pervert law school as thier customer and that was the reason to fire the emploees.

    11. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      Child porn usually least to child molestration. Don't believe me look up the stats yourself.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    12. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Insightful
      this isn't just pr0n, but child porn. big difference. let's say you found emails, etc., that the guy was running a drug ring, selling crank to kids down at the local school yard. or that he was funneling money to al qaida or something. where do yo draw the line.

      Ok, fair enough. If the kids in the kiddie porn were his own kids, or there was some other evidence that he had taken the pictures himself (they were taken in his house, for instance), then I would agree that one should get the police involved immediately. But if he just downloaded some stuff off the net, I think the correct response is just tell him to delete it from the office computer and do his jerking off at home!

      Really, do we have to make a federal case out of everything?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    13. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Countless millions. Duh! After all, it's a COPYRIGHT LAW professor! The last thing we need is more copyright law, it harms our kids!
      --os

    14. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the correct response is just tell him to delete it from the office computer and do his jerking off at home!


      Except then he continues to be a consumer of child pornography, thus he continues to pay for it, and someone else (an even bigger sicko) continues to get paid to exploit children in disgusting ways.

    15. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In this case, kids. I can't say whether looking at child pornography causes one to molest, but common sense would say it wouldn't deter it.

      To what extent is being put in to the position of being photographed in sexually explicit positions not molestation? The point is that some child is abused in this process and that downloading *and storing* this material is contributing to this abuse. If someone can *make money* by *sexually abusing childen* then that person needs to be put in prison for a long long time, IMO. If someone contributes to that trade, then that person needs some sort of criminal punishment, though maybe not to the same degree.

      Now, whether digital representations should fall into the same category is a whole different question, and I have a different answer because I am afraid of how that could be a slippery slope with regard to censorship.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    16. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Don't believe me look up the stats yourself.

      I tried but couldn't find those statistics. Why don't you post a link to them? Why, because I think that you are full of shit. I looked and couldn't find any evidence that viewing child porn leads to molestation.

    17. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this isn't just pr0n, but child porn. big difference

      I have an automated newsreader that downloads all of the groups I've subscibed to. Even in text groups you find binaries of this kind of material. Am I guilty of a felony? Someone sends me spam for a child porno site, outlook saves this anyway even if you do delete it.. Am I guilty of a felony?

      Not only is this law counterproductive, it turns a lot of people into felons by simply being overbroad.

    18. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      You *do* realize that there is a difference between child molesters and producers of child porn?

      And that a 17 year old in a video "intended to incite lust" falls under US child porn laws?

      I tend to think that a lot of laws designed to mold people into embracing certain moral values are fairly broken. I'm not sure that legalizing prostitution is a good idea...but I'm quite sure that making it illegal on moral grounds is a bad idea. The same goes for child porn. Show actual damage to society, folks...not just touchy-feely "well, that doesn't seem *right*" claims.

    19. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting employee rights "wrongful discharge" issue. Unfortunately, unlike in the EU, private sector jobs that are neither contractual or unionized are subject to the employment-at-will doctrine, meaning that such jobs are not protected by government. Just as employees are free to quit their jobs, employers are free to terminate employees without notice. There are three generally accepted exclusions to the EAW doctrine though: violation of public policy, implied contract, and implied covenant. Firing employees for refusing to commit a crime, reporting criminal activity to the authorities, or for disclosing illegal, unethical, or unsafe practices (whistle-blowing) is considered a violation of public policy and is actionable. The employee though has to show that the employer's sole grounds for the termination was retaliation; otherwise, Collegis can fire the two. Depending on the work records of the two employees, the case could go either way. I'm not sure their argument that finding the porn constituted sexual harassment has any merits. It would depend on the specific wording of the NY statute. In my jurisdiction, it wouldn't fly. If the employees allowed the porn to pass though without informing the management, then the employees would put themselves in a bad situation legally if the porn was ever discovered in the future and it was shown that the company via the IT workers knew or had reason to know that there was child porn on the system.

    20. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Luguber123 · · Score: 1

      Hey!! Many child abusers are teachers, priest, politicians and business people. I don't really hear about many cases where someone have a real "evil"-intent like selling crack to kids or do Al Qaida bussiness on the side, in fact I don't even think Al Quaida is very tolerant when i comes to child abuse. I'm sorry to hear that a modern teacher is this catagorical. It's in public interest show child porn surfer to a psycologist/psyciatrist instead of to the police and the press. Child molesters are quite a different subject, violent people are those who are habitual. A child porn surfing joe might be a regular guy like you and me who might be in a 'difficult' phase of his life.

      Then again, many people have the tendency to go a little bit out of their way to preserve what they think is right and I don't blame you for beeing concerned for your kids. Then again, child porn surfers might be people too. Use your brain.

    21. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by gazbo · · Score: 1

      Try looking up snuff films. I think you'll find that they don't exist; nobody has ever seen one.

    22. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by mcheu · · Score: 1

      There's an old Chinese saying:

      "Ne Em Say, Gnoi Say." (You Die or I die.)

      Which would you choose?.

      We're talking about a criminal act here. If you choose to handle it this way on your own, and it comes out that you were covering for this sicko, you're an accessory to the crime. A conviction for Kiddie porn possession and an entry in the cop's Pedophile database isn't going to do your career any good. This guy had better be a damned good friend of yours if you're willing to risk this much for him.

    23. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, having already looked into this issue, I only found a case study where several child molesters where interviewed in order to find things in common between them. In all the cases, CP was not even involved. I wish I had a link...

    24. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by m1066ad · · Score: 1

      Look up the age of consent in most countries. In most states in the US, it's either 17 or 18[AR used to be 16, but I think it was changed in the early 90's or so]. In most Western countries [Britain, Europe, ect.], it's 16, still. In some countries, it's much younger. Hell, I was 11, when I got laid by a 34-yr-old woman, and I never complained about it ;-)

    25. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what if it isn't intentional? what if he mass downloaded a bunch of porn and hadn't sorted through it and had no idea there was kiddie porn in there? what if someone planted it there?

      these kinda laws leave to much open, and can be used in revenge. someone I know spent 3 months in prison because someone wanted revenge on him. he was accused of molesting someone's daughter (which he didn't, was at work at the time it supposedly happened). it's a long story. basically, simply getting accused is enough to put you in prison. the accusers didn't even show up for court, they had left town (they were shady and were doing illegal stuff to begin with).

      but anyways. i think the laws setup to protect children make it too easy for innocent people to be falsely accused. same thing with rape. but i guess its hard to say where to draw the line. but if someone planted child porn on your computer and got you arrested, what would you think then? You certainly wouldn't be able to work as a teacher ever again...

    26. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Master+Bait · · Score: 1
      We're talking about a criminal act here. If you choose to handle it this way on your own, and it comes out that you were covering for this sicko, you're an accessory to the crime.

      Removing the material from this person's hard drive would not be criminal. It would be the right thing to do because kiddie porn is immoral!

      I used to work at a small daily newspaper and I remember this horrible case where a little 3 year old girl was kidnapped, raped, tortured and then killed. They caught the guy after a lengthy investigation. When he committed the murder, he had been out of prison for less than a month. Sex criminals get worse in prison, not better. Prisons aren't making kiddie porn go away, are they?

      As far as the example of finding kiddie porn on somebody's computer, a sincere face-to-face with the person who collected it, telling them honestly that their desires that they're feeding are not healthy, causing them personal embarassment by looking them in the eye and saying that you know what they are doing, telling them that they're facing ruin, and telling them that innocent kids are being exploited against their will would be very powerful.

      I don't depend on 'authorities' to make this world a better place. The way this world gets better is if people take direct action when they see somebody else fucking up like that -- even if it is giving the guy a black eye, like others suggested.

      Authorities are only a representative of society, but each individual is also a representative of society. Society makes the real rules when it comes to morality, right and wrong, not politicians.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    27. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      while i totally agree, and in fact am sometimes scared to death that some student who wants to "get back" because they failed or whatever, and says "he touched me...", or just says "he asked me...". there are alot of factors. like how much? hope fully there is some IP logging tocheckwhere it came from. how bout if there is some on work comp, AND at home. usually, the cops will investigate and be able to determine if this is a set up or the real deal.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    28. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      "...look at the research on child molestors. they are habitual. they cannot be "cured". actually true of most sex offenders. but towards children especially."

      Look at the research yourself, it seems the recidivism rate for sexual offenders and children predators varies between 10% and 40%. The rate is not 100% as you make it seem to imply. You may think 10% or 40% is too much to bear, or that the research is flawed because many sexual offenses go undetected, I won't argue with you there and that's not what I'm arguing -- I'm just trying to distinguish what is fact and what is opinion. You *said* that "the research" backed up your claim and that's simply not the case.

      The first article is a study, which analyzed the combined results of 61 previous studies on this topic.
      http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/han/hanson _98_frame.htm

      The second article is a review of the literature on this subject.
      http://home.tiscali.nl/~ti137156/helping/articles/ grubin_96.htm

    29. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he got it off the net (of if its in some kind of digital format) he probably didn't pay for it...

    30. Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? by sribe · · Score: 1

      I would simply talk to the person that had porn on their computer, delete their porn and tell them to go see a shrink. Sheesh, do people really think that bosses and police are the solution to the problem of kiddie porn?

      And that would do no good at all and the sick pervert would go on raping children. Good for you! (BTW: I'm assuming we're talking about actual pictures of adults engaging in sex acts with children, what normal people call child rape.)

      Child porn is used by pedophiles. These are people who are repeat offenders and who are almost never "cured" by psychotherapy. In most cases the only thing that stops a pedophile is prison. So while you may be squeamish (as well you should be) about calling the cops based on a file found on someone's computer, I can assure you that if you had any idea at all about the extent of psychological devestation these sick fucks wreak on children, the thought of not calling the police would literally make you want to puke.

      If you think for one moment that someone who is not a pedophile would seek out pictures of children having sex, then you're just not using your head. Seriously, what do you think your reaction to seeing such vile material would be? Your friends? Your family? You need to realize that we're talking here about materials to which normal people have universal reactions of shock and disgust. Yes, I realize that's a broad statement, but it's pretty well ingrained into human nature that coercing young children for sexual gratification is wrong--imagine that!

      No HR is NOT the proper channel, a FELONY was commited, the only proper channel is the police. Why is that so hard for people to understand. If a murder occours in the lobby do you call HR? No, you call the police. HR is for minor squables or at the most sexual harasment claims, not for serious felonies.

      Dude, thank you! Seriously, it's glad to see someone else who doesn't think you should check your moral compass at the door when you get to work.

  5. blackmail by shione · · Score: 0, Troll

    thats how you get up the corporate ladder these days and have some 'fun' along the way.

  6. Illegal things... by NamShubCMX · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't think I would tell about most "illegal" stuff I could find on a computer...

    But child porn... I'd tell for sure. Fire me if you will...

    --
    We've always been at war with Eurasia.
    1. Re:Illegal things... by pizzaman100 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly. If I found child porn, I would report it. If I found a screener of the Matrix Reloaded I would co.. nevermind. :)

    2. Re:Illegal things... by Soko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with you whole heartedly.

      Though out of work at the moment, I have in the past drafted company policy regarding things of this nature.

      I always made sure that employees understood that the workstation they sat at was the property of the company and to be used for company related business only. I made certain they understood that they were not to use resources as though they were connecting via an ISP, (I helped many people connect to thier ISPs mail system in order to recieve personal messages - I'm not heartless, just professional) and that the company viewed activities of this nature very, very seriously. "Dismissal with cause" was used very often in the wording of the policy, and "seek Legal remedies" was used once or twice as well.

      Most people don't realise that even viewing questionalble content with company resources, (But I didn't "download" it, I just looked at it!!!) leaves the company open to legal issues ("Know what a proxy is Bob? How about your browsers cache, hmmmm?) since the file ends up on the comanies system somewhere.

      Executive summary: Things like this should be a matter of policy, and made known to each and every employee the day they're hired before they even touch a keyboard.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    3. Re:Illegal things... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Precisely. Any company that would fire someone because such an act is "publically embarassing" should give some thought to

      A) how embarrassing it will be when the news outlets get ahold of the story of them FIRING an employee for doing the right thing. and

      B) what else the former employee might be able to embarrass them with once he's no longer employed and has a good reason to do as much damage to them as legally allowable.

      Unless they provide the whistle blower with a spectacular severance package tied to a no-blabbling agreement, they might as well lay off their PR department, because at that point the company's reputation is officially worthless.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    4. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many children did that guy abuse? Zero? Why's in jail for? Thoughtcrime?

    5. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in this case, the guy didn't use University resources to download or view his kiddie porn. The images were on his computer, which he brought in to have looked at by a tech.

      The tech probably shouldn't have been looking at the computer in the first place.

    6. Re:Illegal things... by Luguber123 · · Score: 1

      I've had this case myself once, and I told the porn collector. He quitted collecting porn.
      Actually telling the police or your boss about the content of your users files puts you in a unetical position as a system administrator, not to mention unprofessional.
      I'd not be the first to protect people that collect child pornography but they are most likely people too, or atleast they used to be and I belive most of them can change back if you give them a chance. Telling the police will put them in prison, the papers will know and they will be unable to resume a normal life again.
      If somebody where to run a business out of it or to resemble a complete stereotype in the field I'd probably go way futher.

    7. Re:Illegal things... by belroth · · Score: 1

      The images were, as far as I can make out, on a computer used by the professor. Police also found images on computers at his home.

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    8. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      If you witness a crime, then whether or not you it took place at work should have no bearing on your decision to report it. A corporate policy should not be dictating appropriate responses to legal infractions. The corporation cannot replace law enforcement. The corporation is soulless, you cannot expect it, and thus should not allow it, to determine the appropriate course of action in these matters.

      Executive summary: Matters of law, should not be weighed against matters of corporate policy. It is the duty of the corporation to defer handling of these situation to the appropriate authorities.

    9. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wait, you told someone with a collection of child porn to not store it on his work's computer?

      Child porn is one of those things that is creepy as all hell. You really should've called the police.

    10. Re:Illegal things... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many children did that guy abuse?

      Exactly as many as the number of children on the pictures he held.

      I don't care if he didn't take the pictures. He's creating the demand for the pictures to be created.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    11. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they are two major types of people who will download kiddie porn. The first type is younger guys who think it's interesting and kinda cute and kinda sexy, but would never ever hurt a child in real life. These people do not create demand. They wouldn't even be interested in it if it weren't already out there. The second type is older guys who have some sort of obsession with children and either demand kiddie porn to enhance their fantasies or seek out children to abuse to realize their fantasies. The second type is probably the kind that would produce kiddie porn. The first type will probably grow out of it; the second type should probably seek sexual counseling immediately if he hasn't yet directly harmed children, and, if he has, should be punished in some way while receiving counseling.

      By the way, jail is not punishment. Community service is punishment. Jail is (a) a scare tactic and (b) a last resort for people who will not outlive their own warped psyche.

    12. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like asking how many people Osama himself killed. He pays for the stuff to be done, therefore, he is a party to the crime.

    13. Re:Illegal things... by etymxris · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now the story makes it seem like their discovery was innocuous enough. But how many times do computer repair people snoop around where they should not? Yes, the person had vile, disgusting, and illegal content on his computer. But why did the repair person find this material? If I send a computer in for repair, I am not giving access for someone to look through all my personal shit.

      It's as if I left my diary in a car that was in the shop, and all the mechanics started reading it. Except for computers, this is the norm rather than the exception. I don't want someone going through all my personal shit.

      So the people that fired them made the right decision. The word is now out that giving your computer to these people will hold all your personal data up to scrutiny by complete strangers. So what if your wife picks it up, and they tell her about the (legal) porn hidden in an innocuous sounding directory? Or maybe they'll read about the financial plans of your company, because some important documents were on the PC?

      The truth is that people doing repairs should make every attempt not to view even a smidgen of personal data on the PCs they repair. So this article makes their discovery sound like they couldn't help it. But why were they clicking around in random directories? Simply wondering, "Hmm, what's in this directory," is not nearly a good enough reason. A repairperson should know what directories are relevant to fixing the computer and which are not.

      Now, of course, all of this is null and void if there was some telling "C:\ChildPorn" directory on the computer. But barring such obvious dumbassedness on the part of the person giving the computer for repair, the repair-persons' actions were clearly unethical, even if, in the end, they discovered another unethical action. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember.

    14. Re:Illegal things... by schnits0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very insightful. I have nothing against ANY type of porn as long as it's a consentual thing. As in, being 17 and having pictures of a 16 year old girl who posed for her boyfriend on your computer shouldn't be illegal. Even 5-10 years olds have some degree of understanding about sex and such. If they have no objection to having their bodies posted on the internet, what would be bad? We need to teach kids that sex is a healthy thing and that everyone is empowered to make sexual decissions at any age, even if it's a 13 year old girl fucking some guy who's 20. If she wants pics taken and she wants sex, then go right ahead I say.

    15. Re:Illegal things... by JdV!! · · Score: 2
      There is no such thing as 'personal data' on a computer owned by your employer.


      JdV!!

      --
      <Enter any 12-digit prime to continue>

    16. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if he got all those pics for free? Is he still financing abusers?

    17. Re:Illegal things... by jmv · · Score: 1

      If you see that only as a "company resources" issue, then you have to say that checking the news or latest NHL scores is as bad as looking at (child) porn, no?

    18. Re:Illegal things... by ColaMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your analogy is still a little flawed.

      To try and fix your car analogy it's like getting your mechanics to swap your car with another, and while transferring your personal effects, they find a whole bunch of loose paper in the back of the car with child porn on it.

      Computer repair people often *need* to see everything.

      I'll give you a real-world example :
      Your PC stops working. I find that windows 98 is scrambled. I say, "Hmm ,better back everything up here before I toast it and start again" In the process of backing up, I notice that your 40GB drive is nearly full, but "C:\My Documents" only has 5MB of documents in it.
      I check "C:\program files" ... hmmm just office (and office is not *yet* 35GB). Where the hell is all this space going? I'd better find it, because If I blow away your 38GB of thesis data , you're going to be pissed.

      So, now I'm poking around your PC going "Where the hell does this guy store all his data?"

      So eventually I find your data, in C:\windows\options\cabs\Porn. While copying the files to a safe place, I see lots of "lolita" type filenames. What to do? If I've copied it to a spare drive of mine, whilst I erase and fix yours, *I've* got child porn on *my* drive now.
      What If there's a raid just after I finish reformatting your drive? "Honest Officer, It's *my* drive, but it's that guys data" is a hard one to pull off.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    19. Re:Illegal things... by omega_cubed · · Score: 2

      Read the article please!

      Neither the accusations of the plaintiffs, nor the response provided by the company, had any indication that the two techs involved were fired for "snooping around". The official reason for dismissal after two probation letters were things like "repeated tardiness" or "combative attitude toward superiours". That had nothing to do with them looking at the contents of the clients.

      The plaintiffs brought suit because they believed that they were fired for actions that cause the company and the client to lose face. And the "official" reason for their dismissal, quoth the plaintiffs (even if they believe those to be just excuses) had nothing to do with their actions in that particular incidents. Putting those togather does not tell you that the company "allegedly fired the employees for looking around in the client's computers."

      What would you do if somebody send in a computer for repairs suspected of having a virus? Granted that chances of finding a virus infected file in a subdirectory of "C:/My Music" is low, if I can't find the virus anywhere else, I would still go in a look, at least to make sure there aren't say, any sketchy looking executables downloaded off KaZaA or anything.

      But that is all just an aside, see. If the company had fired the techs for "unethical" actions, than your point would have been valid. But the question in point is not whether the techs did the right thing, it is whether their unemployment is an indirect result of the "right thing" embarassing their company.

      W

      --
      Engineers also speak PDE, only in a different dialect.
    20. Re:Illegal things... by KnightNavro · · Score: 1
      I don't know if an IT guy should start going through somebody's My Music directory or not as part of troubleshooting (the IT folks claim they were looking for signs of a virus), but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this article. Collegis stated that it fired them for reasons unrelated to the incident with the porn; therefore, they weren't fired for snooping around the professor's computer.

      I find is a strange coincidence that the two people responsible for finding and reporting the porn were fired at the same time so shortly after the incident. Collegis can claim it wasn't related all they want, but it still smells fishy.

    21. Re:Illegal things... by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      RFTA

      This was a company computer not a personal computer so there should be no "personal" data on there. If you drive a car or truck for a company and you take it into the company mechanic, Iwould expect them to look over the vehicle and report any suspicious items. I would not expect them to read a personal journal, but neither did these guys. They opened a directory, similiar to opening the trunk or the glove box. If a pile of child pornos falls out, you need to report that.

      Secondly, you do need to go through random directories with all the crap floating around there. I just had one lady that was getting explorer error because of some spyware that was installed. I had to go and manually delete the files.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    22. Re:Illegal things... by unixbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you read the article it says that the support engineers were looking around the PC was twofold

      a) Ms. Perry's previous experience showed that virus's leave evidence of their existence on the system. The PC had come in with the end user suspecting it had a virus and the tech had had problems with getting virus software on there. It is inherently easier to fix a computer for an end user than to reinstall it and lose either data or custom settings which the user would find difficult to recreate.

      b) The tech that actually found the porn (Mr. Gross aptly enough) was in the process of backing up the PC because Ms Perry believed the system was unstable and they wanted to retain the personal information on the computer fearing it might crash and lose valuable data. This approach was backed up by the help-desk calls from the law school's faculty because they knew when a professor's PC might contain, say, the chapters of a book in progress or class notes.. Now not being psychic and knowing what a professor mught use as part of a lecture or where he may store that key piece of research, I would say that these two were only being diligent in ensuring their user retained all of their personal info. The notion that you can backup a computer without knowing what data you need to keep is just illogical.

      --
      The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
    23. Re:Illegal things... by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "It's as if I left my diary in a car that was in the shop, and all the mechanics started reading it. Except for computers, this is the norm rather than the exception. I don't want someone going through all my personal shit."

      PGPDisk

      "the person had vile, disgusting, and illegal content on his computer"

      'Illegal' is the only one of those three claims that you can prove, unless you happen to have seen the pictures in question.

      p.s. "Thumbnail" pictures to me sounds like a browser cache, which is not completely under the user's control. Do you know anyone who would right-click-save thumbnails and not actual pictures? However, we take the judge's word that it was enough to be illegal [in NY].

      But then, with unpublished evidence who can tell?

    24. Re:Illegal things... by Doc+Hopper · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered about the "ethicality" (is that a word?) of turning in people you know are offenders.

      For instance, my former neighbor grew some weed in his basement for his personal supply. It didn't hurt anybody, and he was a very pleasant, nice person. I liked him, and counted him as a friend. Do I turn him into the police for this known illegal action? Do I let him know that I don't condone his conducting illegal activities, but otherwise leave him alone? Do I not say anything?

      Similarly, I run into this on a daily basis at work, but on a smaller scale. We run daily reports on email usage, and report any overage to HR. The HR director decided that if any user received or sent more than 25 messages in a day, I would need to submit a detailed report to her of whom they mailed or received mail from, and the timing. She would, in turn, report this information to supervisors on a regular basis, who were free to act or not act on this information. Given that the bank I work for is in the middle of closing down, supervisors have strong incentives for weeding out any "unproductive" workers.

      Am I unethical for making that daily report? I mean, I give names, dates, and numbers, and I've become a cog in the wheel that has gotten people fired or encouraged to resign where I work.

      There have been studies about how people simply accept authority, even if it results in horrific personal consequences for some poor schmuck down the line. I don't want to be part of that chain.

      However, context is important. In the case of my hash-smoking neighbor, he hurt nobody but himself, and after purchasing the initial seeds, maintained his own crop of weed that did not support people getting hurt. Someone collecting child pornography supports the distributors of that child pornography. Thus they are indirectly victimizing children themselves.

      The ethical question of whether to report or not seems very cut-and-dried, but I think people have to weigh the decision to report this stuff very heavily. In the case of "victimless" crimes, it seems it would be ridiculous to turn someone in. Where there is a victim within one or two generations of the person, though, the responsible person probably should be prosecuted.

    25. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      School.
      it's not a company, it's a school.
      Companies are run a little different than schools are. If you'd read the article you'd know it was a school...

    26. Re:Illegal things... by Soko · · Score: 1

      Think like a lawyer for a second. *ouch* Sorry. ;-) Anyway...

      If your employee knew you had policy that said the following (or something close):

      "Accessing pornography, hate mail, *insert other poetntially distasteful Internet content here* is expressley forbidden. Any employee that willfully engages in these activities will be Dismissed with cause..."

      When they sign the paper that says they've read and understood that policy, you have essentially put responsibility for the content they access on them. IANAL, and some jurisdictions may vary, but where I am this policy works.

      No one would (or should) get fired over getting scores on the game, but putting thier employer at significant legal risk should carry an equally significant penalty.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    27. Re:Illegal things... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "how embarrassing it will be when the news outlets get ahold of the story of them FIRING an employee for doing the right thing."

      They get around it by firing them for something completely unrelated. "We didn't fire Joe because he told the police about our child-molesting employee, we fired him because he was stealing paper clips" or "Joe was taking breaks that were too long" or "Joe showed up to work three minutes late" or any other offence that is technically against company policy but is usually ignored.

    28. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a matter of degree, you idiot. Nothing is black and white. Checking out NHL scores may get you fired, having child porn in your directory will get you handed off to the cops, in addition to being fired.

    29. Re:Illegal things... by pod · · Score: 1

      I think most 'company resources' rules can be summaried as follows:

      Don't do or store on your work computer anything you wouldn't want police or your boss knowing about. You're at work to work.

      Re browsing /. and goofing off: if you don't have enough work, tell your manager you don't have enough to do. One of two things will happen. He'll give you more work. That's good, that's why they pay you. Or, he'll say, it's a slow time right now, take things easy, take some courses, work from home, go on vacation. If you act like an adult, you'll probably be treated as one in return.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    30. Re:Illegal things... by pod · · Score: 1

      It was just an example. What if it was confidential work information? I sometimes get documents labeled so, and even employees of the company shouldn't look at it. So if my machine dies, and I have to send it in for repairs, I should feel confident that the techs won't be snooping around where they don't need to.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    31. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The HR director decided that if any user received or sent
      > more than 25 messages in a day, I would need to submit
      > a detailed report to her of whom they mailed or received
      > mail from, and the timing. She would, in turn, report this
      > information to supervisors on a regular basis, who were
      > free to act or not act on this information.

      Oh, just bloody wonderful. So if I worked with you, I could potentially be fired because of the spam that I RECEIVE?!?!? Even though I sure as hell AM smart enough not to open anything with an attachment that originates outside the LAN. That's lame.... fucking lame and stupid.

      > Am I unethical for making that daily report?

      Damn straight, you are. I'm glad as hell that *I*'ve never worked with your sorry self. And I sure as hell hope that I never have to, in the future.

      To think, there are tons of decent and well meaning people out of work with the collapse of the tech economy. And YOUR sorry ass is still employed.

      F.O.A.D.

    32. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lame ass, he;s just doing his job. Thats what he's been told to do. Guess he could refuse and get canned for it. Then you would have competition at the deep fryer.

    33. Re:Illegal things... by Nameles · · Score: 1

      No, my boss said to do pointless thing like reorganize the whole fucking shelf system of parts, or clean up media when it's going to be used again and easier to find out how it is.

    34. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You should be backing up *EVERYTHING* regardless, anyway.
      Then you just claim stupidity ... which is true. problem solved.

      There is no real reason to go snooping through other people's files

      This is just a lousy excuse so you get to copy other peoples porn.

      Don't snoop. 'Problem' solved.

    35. Re:Illegal things... by Luguber123 · · Score: 1

      Glad you highlighted that context is important. I'm obviously not going to tell alot about the case I mentioned. Today I think I made the "right" decision but one can never be too sure.

      Generally people get a bit catagorical in these cases. I heard about a case where father that was seen bathing naked with his son got lifetime in jail because the neighbour saw them. This might be true or not, but it goes to show that there might be a misunderstanding even in cases that have to do with child-abuse.
      The label child-abuser is probably not so easy to wash away even if you are innocent.

      I do understand that people that are watching child pornography are contributing to creation of it. Some are doing it intensionally some by accident and some because they have not been talking to psycologist when they should have. I'm not trying to make excuses for the fact that he was a "offender". But I think one should think twice before throwing somebody to the lions.

      About the victim issue, I think nowadays when information is up front and extremely easily accessible, you might be victimizing people without even knowing it. Just like, by watching a tv program you might contribute to the creation of the next without knowing it.

    36. Re:Illegal things... by jmv · · Score: 1

      My point was that if all you're considering is company resources (as original post implies), then accessing game scores or porn (at least the legal one) is equivalent. IMO, someone wasting his day (not a couple minutes/day) on game scores (or /.) is not better than spending the same time on (non-child) porn.

    37. Re:Illegal things... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the fired sysadmin will sue for breach of contract. It seems pretty obvious to me that they were fired because the NY Law School - thier outsourcing company's employer - didn't like what they did. I mean, raelly - a law school professor doing something so incredibly socially and legally taboo as looking at child porn is NOT a good way to promote your company.

      Really, these employees should have realized this. They should have told the school's administration. The professor would likely have been fired, and likely arrested (quietly) after he was no longer an employee of the school.

      On hte other hand, these are lawyers we're talking about. They might just make sure the porn (is child porn so vile that it shouldn't even be grouped in with normal porn? I think maybe so) is gone, and carry on with their vile ways.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    38. Re:Illegal things... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 3, Funny

      >>Most people don't realise that even viewing questionalble content with company resources, (But I didn't "download" it, I just looked at it!!!) leaves the company open to legal issues ("Know what a proxy is Bob? How about your browsers cache, hmmmm?) since the file ends up on the comanies system somewhere.

      Which is exactly why I can't view a site like /. at work. Too many times, I run into profanity on these pages. It's a shame... it's tech related, and as such is justified surfing.

      Yet, I've been warned more than once(informally) because the sniffer on our proxy picks up nasty words pretty frequently. The compliance guys are even thinking about banning ./ permanently.

      The only reason I haven't been warned formally or canned is because it IS a tech relted site. But this excuse is getting old.

      So, hey guys, stop cursing around here. Please.

      --
      Huh?
    39. Re:Illegal things... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Someone collecting child pornography supports >the distributors of that child pornography.

      Hmm, If I download mp3's for free, I'm destroying the music industry. But If I download child pornography pictures for free, I'm supporting the child pornography industry.

    40. Re:Illegal things... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Usually, that's probably so. In this case, however, they fired the employee for "publicly embarassing them".

      That's just not smart.

      Also, trumped up "reasons" don't prevent retaliation. Fire an employee with intimate knowledge of your business in that manner without some sort of severance agreement, and watch all your dirty little secrets broadcast to every competitor you have, every regulatory body that might crawl up your companys rectum with a microscope, and every "consumer advocate" TV news guy who likes raking muck.

      Making a minor annoyance into a major enemy isn't generally considered good tactics.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    41. Re:Illegal things... by Doc+Hopper · · Score: 1
      Hmm, If I download mp3's for free, I'm destroying the music industry. But If I download child pornography pictures for free, I'm supporting the child pornography industry.


      Despite the RIAA's claims to the contrary, I don't believe free redistribution of copyrighted tunes destroys the music industry.

      As an example:

      I'm heading to the store first thing Monday to pick up Evanescence's album, "Fallen". I heard it first on a Shoutcast Internet radio station, Club977.com. We had the station playing in the background, while we chatted in our front room, and the song "Bring Me To Life" was so good that I and another person in the room who'd never heard it before rushed over to the PC to see who the band was. I was that impressed. Yeah, some people think it's regular Top-40 dreck, and that's fine, but I love it.

      I haven't bought a single new CD from a major label in 6 years. The only new CDs I have were ones bought at concerts and classical music from smaller distributors. I have a pretty routine problem with CDDB not knowing what my albums are :) Yet, I have money in my pocket to go buy a "mainstream" album from a band who's publisher, though small, is a paying member of the RIAA. And I have no qualms about it. Once I've purchased the album, though, I intend to mail the label and let the know that, as a paying customer, I love the music but abhor the current practices of the association of which they are a paying member. The RIAA is not a power unto itself. Its policies are shaped by the guidance of the board of directors, if I recall, who are voted in by the voice of the labels who are members of the association. They can always be voted out if enough RIAA members get sick of what they are doing. Witness Hilary Rosen's departure. She wasn't doing the job the way the labels wanted, so she's history, despite the cover story to the contrary.

      To push it back on topic, though I realize you were jesting with your comment, in fact I think online MP3 trading helps the music industry far more than it hurts it. The same with kiddie porn -- download and share the porn, and you are supporting those who took the photographs.
    42. Re:Illegal things... by TerryMathews · · Score: 1

      Ignorance is never an excuse, and I believe that common carrier only applies specifically to ISPs. IANAL.

      --
      -- Terry
    43. Re:Illegal things... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      just taking the comment " download and share the porn, and you are supporting those who took the photographs."

      Do you think that they photographers would say "oh, nobody is viewing my work, I'll stop doing it", or what exactly?

    44. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you make up a lie like this? Club977 is an 80's station, and furthermore they have their complete song list on their website, and Evanescence is nowhere on it!!

    45. Re:Illegal things... by Famatra · · Score: 1

      Child pornography may be self a reinforcing cycle creating more demand for child pornography (pictures) but I propose that pictures are not *the problem*

      The problem is the harming of children. Children maybe harmed *less* if the seekers of child pornography fufill/satiate their need by masturbaiting/fantasy with pictures so they *Don't" have to seek out children in real life. Of course this all presupposes that sexual activity harms children, which may or may not be true.

    46. Re:Illegal things... by Doc+Hopper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      JohnFluxx,
      "Do you think that they photographers would say "oh, nobody is viewing my work, I'll stop doing it", or what exactly?"
      That's a really good question that I have no good answer to. I'll have to chew on it a lot longer to come up with a satisfactory answer; probably longer than this thread will stay editable on Slashdot.
      My gut instinct is that child porn producers won't cease their trade unless caught, scared, or harassed out of the industry. The same goes for those who consume it.
      Wow, I just suddenly realized that my non-answer in the second paragraph has more application than just this question. Which probably means it's too general to be of any use. Substitute the words "spam" or "illegal drug" or for "child porn", and we've hit on a question that nobody's found the definitive answer for yet. It seems that legalizing this kind of behavior doesn't solve the problem, and neither does declaring "war" on it.
      I stand by my statement that trafficking in child pornography is tacit support of the photographers. However, evidence from the U.S. drug war suggests that cracking down on the behavior simply worsens the consequences of being caught. Rather than alleviating the problem, it appears to aggravate it.
    47. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do have a really good point. If you get fired for doing the right thing... you need to do 2 things...

      1 call OSHA and report an anonomous concern about that place and it's workplace safety.

      2 call the BSA and report the rampant pirating done there (NOBODY can pass a BSA audit clean)

      3 contact the local stations and tell a reporter your story.

      4 contact a lawyer and start a lawsuit against the company AND who fired you personally.

      this usually will get you an offer if about 6 months to 1 year of pay and benefits for you to shut the hell up.

    48. Re:Illegal things... by IanBevan · · Score: 1
      C:\windows\options\cabs\Porn

      Wow ! You mean you can get a windows installer for porn ?

    49. Re:Illegal things... by larryleung · · Score: 1

      Woah... everyone is judging this company prematurely. All the evidence is for one side right now and since the company cannot speak their side (thanks to the litigation), we don't have the full picture.

      Yea, it's so tempting to just blame it on the company since it is a company and companies are the root of all evil. But if it turns out that these judgments are wrong, we're ruining the reputation of a company unnecessarily. (And no, saying "I take that back" months down the line doesn't fix anything)

    50. Re:Illegal things... by ndogg · · Score: 1

      If you backup everything, how do you know that you're not backing up the virus that's infecting the computer? If you've restored everything, and you still have a virus, you haven't fixed anything.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    51. Re:Illegal things... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but the company is much better equipped to defend itself than the individual that they (allegedly) fired without valid reason.

      In the post you replied to, I'm assuming for sake of discussion that the facts of the matter are as described in the story. Under those circumstances, the company is WRONG, and any damage the individual they fired can do to them under the limits of the law is not only allowable, but applaudable.

      If the facts are not as described, of course I don't encourage dragging the company's name through the mud.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    52. Re:Illegal things... by larryleung · · Score: 1

      But see that's the problem. I've read the infoweek article (got a free subscription ;)) and it basically says:
      1. These two employees found the porn and reported it. This part is clear.
      2. Some time later, they got fired for other reasons.

      The article leads us to think:
      3. Well, duh. It's a setup, they got fired for the former.

      But really it doesn't actually claim that this is the case (since it would clearly be libel since the court hasn't decided yet).

      These "facts" are merely us presuming there is a cause and effect relation between #1 and #2.

      But in fact we're the *least* qualified to judge, yet it seems we've already tried the company and convicted. THIS IS WRONG

      Instead, when talking about this, we should make sure to preface all our judgments with the supposition that the court rules in favor of the IT workers.

    53. Re:Illegal things... by giantsfan89 · · Score: 2
      Now the story makes it seem like their discovery was innocuous enough. But how many times do computer repair people snoop around where they should not? Yes, the person had vile, disgusting, and illegal content on his computer. But why did the repair person find this material? If I send a computer in for repair, I am not giving access for someone to look through all my personal s***.

      In a corporate environment, the computer is not owned by the employee, but by the company. Personal files shouldn't be stored on corporate property, especially kiddie crap or whatever.

      --
      Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth!
    54. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The simple answer to this, use ghost or some such tool to make a complete drive image and then format the HD and then install from CD or a clean Ghost Image and then copy only data files and directories back to the new pristine build, and there in lies the problem people, how am i supposed to give the user back their files if i don't know where they keep them? i need to go poking cos user's are universally stupid when it comes to PC's (take the professor for example, hiding porn in the My Music folder *DUH*), i have come across all sorts of idiocy from user's, like storing private mail in the deleted items folder of Outlook!, using temp directories to hold business documents, filing to root dir of their machine with PORN!.

      i can't speak for all techs but i can speak for myself, if i wanted to look at porn i can get to it quicker and easier than poking around User machines, but if i want to do my job properly i need to go looking all over the HD (or ghost image of the HD) to find the user's data, it's as simple as that.

    55. Re:Illegal things... by CognitivelyDistorted · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That makes a lot of sense. But what about a company that has a strategy of attracting talent by allowing their employees a lot of freedom, and has a policy of not monitoring or restricting employees' use of their computers? What should the company do if a tech reports one of the employees for illegal files?

      Given that the tech saw the files, he did the right thing, but he also violated, or at least gave the appearance of having violated, the company's policy and hurt its business. It seems to me that the company can legitimately fire the tech in this case. (Of course, that would make it harder to hire good techs!)

      This hypothetical example isn't necessarily relevant to the situation in the article. But it could be. Maybe the faculty at other schools will not want their school to hire this company because of what happened.

    56. Re:Illegal things... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      But why did the repair person find this material?

      According to the FA, the PC was acting strangely and a virus was suspected. After scanning failed to find anything, one of the techs was browsing through the file system looking for suspicious files (ie, ones created by a virus), and on opening a folder the image previews jumped up (I guess that's MS's Active Desktop). That's their story, possibly they were really snooping but it's plausible.

      No mention of what, if anything, actually was wrong with the PC.... maybe the guy clicked one of those popups on a porn site that install diallers or the like.

      The moral is obvious, if you have crap like that on your hard disk, don't send it for repair. Ask someone to replace the hard disk while you watch and take it away and destroy it with a hammer. "Security" would serve as the excuse, and in these paranoid times it'd be unquestioned. Next time move everything to CDR (encrypted if you can manage) and keep it locked up. Or wait till you're at home. Buy and old-fashioned wank mag at your local sex shop when you need relief in your executive washroom.

    57. Re:Illegal things... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Ignorance is never an excuse

      Yes but most judges would throw out such a prosecution shoud the cops or prosecutors be dumb enough to proceed. That's why you have judges, to make such calls.

    58. Re:Illegal things... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And for that matter, as an extreme case -- how do you know the owner isn't a legit researcher who archives kiddie porn for the express purpose of studying social trends involved, or whatever? (IIRC you can get a waiver from law enforcement for certain types of research, porn among 'em.)

      There really isn't a good solution here. You can either avoid snooping and possibly not do your tech job to its fullest, or snoop (accidentally or otherwise) and perhaps be required by law to report what you see (the article links to another which states that this is indeed the law in some states).

      The trouble with the latter, is that it can be twisted against individuals just as any privacy breach can be. Frex, say you have some adult gay porn in a state where homosexuality is illegal. Say a tech trips over it. Now what?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    59. Re:Illegal things... by Fryed · · Score: 1

      Well, to throw in a reply that doesn't rely on obscene language to get a point across.

      Well, first off, that's a really annoying policy you have at your job. Simply sniffing out dirty words and using that as the basis for whether or not someone should be looking at a site makes very little sense. However, it's their computer, their connection, their resources, so gotta follow their rules.

      Second: Try viewing comments at a score level of +4 or +5. Yes, you'll miss some very interesting ones. However, ones that get modded up that high rarely have to rely on four letter words to make a point, so you're likely to be somewhat safe there

    60. Re:Illegal things... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Not if you include public good will/image amongst company resources.

      1) Company sacks someone coz he was checking game scores for an hour of company time.

      2) Company sacks someone coz he was viewing porn for an hour of company time.

      Alternatively:
      a) A litigious colleague spots said someone checking game scores for an hour, and files a lawsuit.
      b) A litigious colleague spots said someone viewing porn for an hour of company time, and files a lawsuit.

      I think it's different.

      --
    61. Re:Illegal things... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. The change in attitude of one's colleagues caused by football results or viewing porn are somewhat different...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    62. Re:Illegal things... by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      You could try making(or finding, I doubt I'm the first one to get this idea) a proxy (either http or just a cgi script pulling the slashdot page and regexping) to censor text on a site. Not the most elegant solution, but would work. Or alternativly, bug taco until he gets someone to add an optional censoring feature to slashcode.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    63. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no states where gay porn is illegal anymore, sorry.

    64. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I suppose it was coincidence that they were rummaging around in his "my music" folder, several levels deep.

      None of the excuses in the article are believable.

      You either back up all the data, or you are doing a half arsed job.

    65. Re:Illegal things... by agurkan · · Score: 1

      you reformatted the drive, the data is still recoverable, so you are secure from legal point of view. The probability of getting raided and being caught at the moment while data in your drive is recoverable but customer's not is so little that it does not justify privacy breach.

      --
      ato
    66. Re:Illegal things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though out of work at the moment, I have in the past drafted company policy regarding things of this nature.

      maybe you're out of work because you're a petty bureaucrat who made up useless rules instead of contributing something useful?

    67. Re:Illegal things... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      >>Second: Try viewing comments at a score level of +4 or +5. Yes, you'll miss some very interesting ones. However, ones that get modded up that high rarely have to rely on four letter words to make a point, so you're likely to be somewhat safe there

      I know. But you may notice that sometimes guys that are modded up to +5 Funny have bad words in them.

      Such is life.... I'm not crying about this subject, just trying to make some conversation.

      Oh yeah, someone else mentioned that it's a stupid policy my company has. I agree, but it's all the rage these days for Fortune 500 companies to write ane enforce policies that keep the workplace free of offensive and hostile materials. And yeah, they partially rely on sniffers at my shop. At least my managers are cool enough to understand that you run into bad stuff on occasion. But that understanding can only go so far.

      Peace.

      --
      Huh?
    68. Re:Illegal things... by crapulent · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like handing your car over to the mechanic with a large cardboard box full of polaroids of naked 8-year-olds in the back seat. The pictures in question are obviously suspect in both cases, and in both cases they were in plain sight, albeit in a place not primarily related to the thing being fixed (but still available to the technician for reasonable purposes, ie "backing the car onto the lift and turning around and noticing" compared to "cleaning up crap on the hard drive to make more room".)

    69. Re:Illegal things... by Piquan · · Score: 1

      I used to work in PC repair. A lot of cases don't need much at all. I've had a few where I didn't even turn the computer on to fix it, just to test it. (The volume knob was all the way down.) But a lot of cases need more extensive scrutiny.

      Disk space is a common one. Porn archives are usually big. If you're tracing down where all the disk space has gone, you'll pretty quickly narrow it down to the 60 GB of porn.

      How about routine maintenance? Virus scanners, scandisk, etc, etc? These sit there and list the files as they're scanning. If 80% of the drive is porn, then 80% of the time, there'll be a porn filename on the screen. Just checking the screen to see if a scan is done hands you a dead giveaway. Some users file their porn in C:\Windows\Temp. If you go to clear out temp as part of regular maintenance, or because of a busted install... (some install programs, if they failed or wrere cancelled, would keep failing until you clear their files out of Temp.)

      On that thread, a lot of people file their porn in places that are routinely seen by technicians, mostly on the grounds that these are places the wife would never look. C:\Windows\DAVES-KRAD-PR0N is a bit obvious, but C:\Windows\Options\Cabs\FOO is also obviously out-of-place. If you're reinstalling from there, then you see the directories. I had one customer with a vast porn archive in C:\DOS. I noticed because I found that \command.com and \dos\command.com were out of sync, so I decided to check the rest of the directory.

      Every now and then, you get a recurring problem that defies analysis. To fix those, you sometimes have to comb the computer looking for any sort of clues at all. Part of that is to see what all is on the computer. To continue from ColaMan's analogy, suppose you have a stash of porn under your back seat. (I'm not going to ask why.) You ask a mechanic to find a rattle. He checks the dash, looks for loose items on the floorboard and in the trunk, and checks out the engine and suspension. After failing to find the rattle, he may need to comb the entire car from bumper to bumper. While doing this, he's sure to find the porn stash.

      The diary analogy is quite different. You assume purpose to open and examine the diary, rather than simply stumbling across an openly identifiable porn stash.

      In my own dealings, I try to keep a level of professional integrity and privacy in my customers' personal files. I don't mention anything to coworkers who don't have a need to know. I certainly don't mention anything to SOs unless I'm already certain that they know (such as knowing about this from a personal relationship). To prevent the customer from embarrassment, I don't let on to the customer what I've seen, unless directly asked. If it becomes necessary (for example, they ask where all their disk space has gone), I may refer to the files as something like "a collection of files in C:\Junk" (no childish winks, nudges or other allusions that I even know the filenames).

      I have never come across kiddie porn. Usually, I only see that there's a bunch of .JPG files in an obscurely named directory, and I don't normally see a need to examine the actual images. So I wouldn't know kiddie porn from any other large JPEG collection. I also have never done desktop support in a corporate environment. So I haven't tested my reactions in those circumstances. Fortunately, I don't do support anymore, so I hope I never will have to.

    70. Re:Illegal things... by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Well, then when you report the find to the police, they'll say "Oh, yeah, it's OK for that guy, but thanks for checking", won't they?

      In my own instance I'll actively look for porn, MP3s etc. because even if it is legal I'm not going to waste time backing the damn stuff up.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    71. Re:Illegal things... by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      In addition, it is not unusual for a company to have a policy that states something to the effect that you should have zero expectation of privacy when using company computer resources, including but nor limited to email and the network. Anything you do may be monitored or archived. Call centers frequently extend this to the telephone, but I'm sure they are not alone in that.

    72. Re:Illegal things... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      It's not my job to decide which of the client's data is important (for all I know, that porn collection represents years of searching for just the "right" stuff, or those MP3s represent hundreds of hours of conversion from ancient vinyl and may be irreplaceable). So it ALL gets backed up, even if I think it's utterly useless shit and a perfect waste of disk space.

      As to legal aspects -- sooner or later someone is going to bring a suit against a tech who roots thru private files, and then we'll see shit hitting BOTH sides of the fan...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    73. Re:Illegal things... by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      That's right, just back up everything, especially the spyware and virus infected files that were causing the problems in the first place. Be sure to restore them exactly as they were so the customer gets the machine back in exactly the same state they gave it to you in!

      That's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    74. Re:Illegal things... by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Ah, well, I have the advantage that I'm an internal tech, so my customers work for the same company I do, and so in a snese they are my computers, not theirs.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    75. Re:Illegal things... by PolarBear3 · · Score: 1
      Your car analogy is correct, if the mechanic you are taking your car to purchased and owned the car and also purchased and owned your diary.

      The company here (or school as it were) owns the computer, the software, purchases the support, and pays for the electricity that runs the dang thing. If they don't have the right to own it (and control it in every aspect), then who does? If I buy something and maintain my ownership of it (don't gift it to someone) then don't I have the right to decide if someone can keep using it - evaluate whether what they are doing with it is in my best interests? At any time take it away at my discrection?

      That's what happened here -

      1. They took it away at their discretion
      2. They looked at it - could've done anything to it - reformat, copy the whole disk, launch it off of an aircraft carrier, etc.
      3. They were going to give it back to the employee, but it was fixed and working better
      4. It just so happens that they discovered something illegal in the process and strung the dude up

      It's theirs. They can do what they want to with it.

      Or can I just come over to your house, stash some of my stuff there and expect you not to look in it since it's "my personal shit"?

    76. Re:Illegal things... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Ah, that does make decisions simpler: Is this a company file? No?? Then to the bit-bucket with it!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    77. Re:Illegal things... by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Or even the level of apparent professionalism. Some policies Can be interpreted to restrict everything from reading slashdot to checking the World Cup scores to illegal activity pr0n, mp3, movies. The policy is in place to encourage professionalism and allow the company to take action if necessary.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    78. Re:Illegal things... by stanmann · · Score: 1

      If you are dealing with a policy that strict, read at +4, give funny a -3, and use a friends list with +3... you could probably even drop back to +3 and give informative +3 also.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  7. How about go through proper channels? by alzoron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you're at work you're acting as an agent of your employer. You should always go through your proper chain of command until the situation is resolved. The last step in the chain being law enforcement.

    1. Re:How about go through proper channels? by BitterOak · · Score: 1
      I absolutely agree. And the first step in the chain should be the employee himself. Confront him, and explain the trouble he could get himself and his company into for having that garbage on a company machine. Advise him to erase it, or at least encrypt it and transfer it to his home computer. That would probably be enough to make the problem go away. If the employee doesn't do anything about it, then go to the boss, explaining politely the serious legal trouble the company could get into otherwise.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Um, NO! If you uncover an obviously illegal activity and you do not report it (or ensure that it is reported through someone else) to the PROPER authorities (not your boss) within a very reasonable amount of time, like 24 hours, you could very well be considered an accessory. That IS the proper channel. But I'd love you to have you work for my company. You obviously have distorted views of reality that make you useful for corporations to use...

    3. Re:How about go through proper channels? by domninus.DDR · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Advise him to erase it, or at least encrypt it and transfer it to his home computer."

      so you condone the explotation of children?

    4. Re:How about go through proper channels? by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did you read the article? They did contact their manager. The police were only contacted later. And honestly, do you really think they got fired for reporting child pornography? Doing so would imply that the manager condoned the professor's action in downloading child porn. Please, there are obviously other things going on here that have yet to be reported. Read the articles before you post...

    5. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? For serious crimes like murder or child pornography the _first_ chain should be the law enforcement.

      Your employer or your company shouldn't be above the law.

    6. Re:How about go through proper channels? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      From article:

      ...opened a folder on a faulty PC last June only to discover thumbnail images of naked young girls in sexually explicit positions. The IT colleagues reported the finding to their manager, setting off a chain of events that resulted in the arrest of the professor who used the computer and, last month, his guilty plea.

      They did go through the proper channels, ie, their manager. Read the article before posting people--and responding to the obvious reply, no, I'm not that new here :)

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    7. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Otter · · Score: 4, Informative
      When Gross saw the thumbnail pictures, he consulted with Perry, who reported the incident to their supervisor, Margaret Perley, another Collegis employee on site at the school, according to the complaint. In a meeting on or about June 13, the suit continues, Perley told Perry and Gross that she had contacted New York City's district attorney's office about the incident. On June 20, the New York City police confiscated Samuels' PC. Samuels was arrested Aug. 14, and a subsequent search of his home turned up more child porn. Last month, Samuels pleaded guilty to 100 counts of "possessing a sexual performance by a child," a felony, and a few days later he resigned his tenured position at New York Law School. Sentencing is scheduled for June 23.

      That does seem to be what they did in this case, and the empolyer insists they were commended for their actions and fired for completely unrelated reasons.

      The whole thing seems fishy to me, but that's why we have courts -- to allow both sides to present their positions, instead of jumping to a conclusion based on what Information Week has to say. It's a shame that a ludicrous sexual harssment claim has to be the vehicle for justice, though.

    8. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Mullen · · Score: 2, Insightful
      When you're at work you're acting as an agent of your employer. You should always go through your proper chain of command until the situation is resolved. The last step in the chain being law enforcement.

      Bullshit. You have a responsibility to society that goes beyond any contract you have with your employer. If you find out that someone is doing that is extremely harmful to society, you must turn them in. If you do not drawn a line on what is permissible and what is not, then anyone can do anything, including acts that are very harmful to children. You are simply just hiding behind a contract to neglect your duty as person in society.

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    9. Re:How about go through proper channels? by photon317 · · Score: 1


      They still took the wrong action, which probably ultimately contributed to their treatment. At any corporation, the proper course of action for anything as serious as child porn is to immediately go to Human Resources. You have two paths there, anonymous reporting to them, or going in on your own name. In either case, going to HR first protects you in a whole bunch of ways - although anonymity is probably the most protected route.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    10. Re:How about go through proper channels? by SoSueMe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Mr. Townsend, is that you?
      Oops, that was research, right?

    11. Re:How about go through proper channels? by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      They went to their boss. Is that the wrong action? Their boss called the police. If going to your boss is wrong action then clearly the boss going to the police is even more drastic and wrong by that analogy.

    12. Re:How about go through proper channels? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      One might be tempted to speculate as to where the professor obtained the material, and/or whether he passed it on to someone else in the company. If so, and the person is still in the company and in a position of power, then you would expect these people to be fired from their jobs.

      Still, that would be speculation on my part, and I have no other evidence as to whether this is indeed happening at this company. It's not impossible that the people have indeed been slacking at their jobs, although from what I've seen of the evidence they do not seem to have been doing so in any significant way.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    13. Re:How about go through proper channels? by MrLint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Im not trying to be rude here, but in case you have been asleep for the past several years, let me remind you of the company ENRON. They had people that tried to go thru the chain of command. The chain of command was in fact full of corrupt criminals.

      In fact companies will protect its employees from the law in direct proportion to their seniorit. In fact I was palced in a situation where federal law was being violated and my employer plain didnt care.

    14. Re:How about go through proper channels? by ChemicalSpider · · Score: 1

      "You have a responsibility to society that goes beyond any contract you have with your employer."

      Yes. Exactly. However, if I were in this situation I would probably alert my employer/chain of command first as a courtesy to my employer. Either my boss (or his boss, etc) will alert the proper authorities, or if I feel that my employers are not handling the situation properly then I will contact the authorities. Basically, what I think the original poster may have meant was:
      Out of courtesy to your employer alert your boss first about any situation (your boss may have experience with similar situations and be a valuable asset to law enforcement), and if and only if you think that the chain of command cannot/won't take care of the situation sufficiently, and in a timely manner then you take matters into your own hands. But I still think that your boss should know beforehand (unless of course this has to do with internal corruption of your boss in the first place).

    15. Re:How about go through proper channels? by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No HR is NOT the proper channel, a FELONY was commited, the only proper channel is the police. Why is that so hard for people to understand. If a murder occours in the lobby do you call HR? No, you call the police. HR is for minor squables or at the most sexual harasment claims, not for serious felonies.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    16. Re:How about go through proper channels? by BitterOak · · Score: 0, Redundant
      so you condone the explotation of children?

      Since when is choosing not to rat someone out to the cops the same as condoning their behavior?

      Also, I don't equate looking at pictures of a crime with committing a crime. Looking at pictures of children being exploited is sick, but I'm not comfortable with the government telling me what kind of pictures I'm allowed to look at. (Not that I'm into kiddie porn myself. Most of it is heartbreaking to look at.)

      I think that child abuse is serious enough that it is important we have some perspective on the issue, and use our resources to go after real crimes.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    17. Re:How about go through proper channels? by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      Yes - they did get officially fired for other issues.

      I don't know the case personally or have a background knowledge in what's happened here, however, I've seen things happen before:

      1. Employee reports something which TPTB don't like.
      2. Employers string together reasons for dismissing said employee, often petty.
      3. Unemployment
      4. ????
      5. Lack of profit.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    18. Re:How about go through proper channels? by hazem · · Score: 1

      There is danger that you could be considered an accoplice if you know he has the child porn and then provide advice on how to transport it from one system to another. If he still gets caught, the last thing you want is him telling how you helped him preserve his collection.

      Also, I think confronting the employee may not be the best/safest option. Suppose he is aware that he could go to prison for a very long time for his child porn, in addition to losing his job. This man might be very desperate to keep that from happening and may decide it would be much easier to find some way to make you dissappear.

    19. Re:How about go through proper channels? by lgftsa · · Score: 1

      > > so you condone the explotation of children?

      >Since when is choosing not to rat someone out to the cops the same as condoning their behavior?

      Every single time.

    20. Re:How about go through proper channels? by etymxris · · Score: 1
      No HR is NOT the proper channel, a FELONY was commited, the only proper channel is the police.
      You bring up a good point. But this goes both ways. It's not these people's jobs to execute search warrants--it's the job of the police. But by clicking on random folders that's exactly what they were doing.

      Of course, there will always be some small benefit obtained by doing this, but this in no way justifies the action. Say a plumber comes to your house to fix the toilet, and after getting the mail, you come back to find him rifling through your personal papers. He says, "I think whoever tried to fix this before botched the job, I wanted to find the receipt to see exactly what he did." Does he have a valid reason for needing this information? Yes. Does that justify his actions? Not in any way.

      The computer stores much personal information, even at work. Asking someone (like me) who works 10-12 hours a day not to have any personal information on a work computer is asking them not to have a personal life. Even eight hours a day is a long time. As such, there should be an expectation of privacy when dealing with people's PCs. Note what the acronym PC stands for: "personal computer". There's a reason it has that name.
    21. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No HR is NOT the proper channel, a FELONY was commited, the only proper channel is the police."

      i agree with the original statement... you might tell HR that you're going to the police, but go to the police you should.

      and the argument that the tech dude can't look through the PC is rubbish. it's not the users PC... it's the companies... and the only stuff on there should be company related stuff. and in the process of fixing it, the tech dude is probably given permission to look around the files on it, you think?

      and then we have the other argument/justification...
      "Asking someone (like me) who works 10-12 hours a day not to have any personal information on a work computer is asking them not to have a personal life."
      umm... what about people that work 10-12 hours a day without even seeing a computer? i used to work 12 hour shifts in a factory... my girlfriends dad is currently in suadi arabia... rhiad.. fixing printing machines... no electricity half the time... up to his ears in suicide bombers... "ohh poor me... i must have acces to my email while at work..." bollocks... you just don't wan't people looking round your work pc cos it's full of kiddie porn.

      --
      the dude abides.
      cHris.

    22. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Please, there are obviously other things going on here that have yet to be reported.

      Yes, it could be that the university higher-ups quietly put pressurew on the contractor to "make an example of" these two employees to discourage techs going through prof's hard drives...A defacto, "don't ask, don't tell," policy that allows them to avoid embarassment.

    23. Re:How about go through proper channels? by photon317 · · Score: 1


      The important thing here is that it is a corporate issue, and the corporation is very involved no matter what. They want to know, and as an employee you have to tell them so that they can respond to the situation appropriately. It's a reasonable stance to take (legally) to inform HR and allow *them* to contact the police. If they fail to do so and you feel that even HR is violating the law, then perhaps it is your place to call the police.

      And I don't keep porn on my work PC either, but I certainly consider it's contents personal. I do read my personal email there, I also pay my bills through my work PC, I do my insurance company stuff through it, I pay my rent through it, I bank through it, etc. If you work 8-5, and most businesses are open 8-5, you end up conducting personal business at work, that's just the nature of things. It used to be on a phone or a long lunch hour, now it's in a browser.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    24. Re:How about go through proper channels? by etymxris · · Score: 3, Insightful
      umm... what about people that work 10-12 hours a day without even seeing a computer? i used to work 12 hour shifts in a factory... my girlfriends dad is currently in suadi arabia... rhiad.. fixing printing machines... no electricity half the time... up to his ears in suicide bombers... "ohh poor me... i must have acces to my email while at work..." bollocks... you just don't wan't people looking round your work pc cos it's full of kiddie porn.
      Nice strawman there. There are laws that make it illegal for companies to tap your phone calls. Why should it be any different for your use of the computer? The days that the data on the computer was the sole province of the company was when it really was all work related. But now the computer is also a communications tool. So what if I have some funny lump on my crotch that I'm not sure is normal or VD? And I browse the web looking for answers. Really, is that anyone's business but my own?

      Of course, I could do such browsing at home. But many things don't make sense to always do at home. If I need to schedule a meeting with a doctor, I'd have to call during the doctor's office hours, which are also my work hours. If I emailed information to my doctor rather than calling him up and telling him, why does this information suddenly become less priviledged?

      Your company does not own you. Even if you don't use a computer at work, you still have some expectation of privacy. The company cannot go rifling through your wallet or purse, yet much of the stuff on the computer is even more personal than this.

      Really, is it that hard to imagine situations where it would be valid to use the computer at work for personal reasons? What if I suffer from panic attacks, and need to schedule an appointment during office hours (again). I obviously don't want to say over the phone at work, "Yeah, I need to schedule an appointment with the psychiatrist." Doing something like having my partner arrange the appointment, and email me the time to show up, is a much better solution.

      I could get around this too, but really, the bottom line is that no company owns my sole, even for eight hours a day. When we enter work we do not become property of the company. What could possibly be your justification for thinking otherwise? That someone said, "Anything that happens at work is the business of the company."? Does someone saying it make it true?

      Or you might be convinced by the law. But just because companies have successfully lobbied for laws granting sweeping rights into invading our privacy by no means makes it correct. There are many instances throughout history where laws are incorrect, even in our own country. So it has to be something else. So what is it?

      Finally, here's a little exercise for you. Tell me who you are. Tell me where you live. Tell me when you masturbate, and how often. Tell me what the stupidest thing you ever said was. Tell me your grades on every assignment you've taken. Tell me your personal medical history, including all the embarrassing ailments you've ever had. Tell me about all the "black sheep" in your family, such as the uncle who cheated on his wife, or worse, someone arrested for doing something stupid.

      If you feel in any way hesitant to comply with any of these requests, then you have a sense of privacy. If you feel that the company you work for would be stepping over the line by asking for any of this information, then you believe that we have a right to keep information from companies we work for. And as society demands that we work more and more to maintain sustenance, and as communication tools put us in touch at any moment and any place, you have a fundamental contradiction in your beliefs. Unless, of course, you deny that we should work at any job with these communication tools present.
    25. Re:How about go through proper channels? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      If this was just porn then yes, this would be the best approach IMHO. However this was child porn. I agree with a previous poster. If I found what was undeniably child pornography, I wouldn't bother calling the cops. I'd take the son of a bitch out back and beat the living shit out of him. I can garuntee you he'd never do it again.

    26. Re:How about go through proper channels? by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      Yes, I do think they were fired due to the child porn incident. The CEO's response is full of legal and corporate double-stepping. I think when the matter is fully brought out in public I think this will be quite evident. I would not be surprised if Perry and Gross were fired for bringing the matter out in public.

      Something that no one has done is put the chain of events in a complete timeline. When was the super notified? When did the super notify their boss? And their boss? When was the NYLS notified? When were the police actually contacted? Perry and Gross discovered the material on June 3. Their super told them on June 13 that she'd contacted the police. Did it really take the super, her supers, and the NYLS 10 days to decide to contact the authorities? Now here is what I think got Perry and Gross fired. I think during this time frame Perry and Gross made it no secret, at least amongst the IT company's coworkers, that they discovered child porn. I think this is likely. I think it could also have been that they pushed their super and her supers to go to the police or they (Perry and Gross) would themselves. Either way I think Perry and Gross either made this somewhat public or threatened (in a mild sense) to make it public (to the police at least) and this is what ultimately got them fired.

      In all honesty I think Collegis and the NYLS would have preferred to sweep this under the rug. I believe this is quite likely why Perry and Gross were fired.

      In essence Perry and Gross had minds of their own and weren't "yes men or women" that bowed to their "superior's" whims. If your superiors are morally impaired and have their own agendas, this can be a quick way to terminate a job.

    27. Re:How about go through proper channels? by thynk · · Score: 1

      You bring up some good points for privacy, but I feel that a company that supplies you with a PC or communication tool has a right to look at the data that is on a machine that they own, and to monitor the data that goes over the network that they paid for. In addition, most if not all companies make this policy known and often have a disclaimer appear at login.

      I'm a big fan of privacy, but I feel that you give up some of those rights at work. If you don't want your personal information to become the company's knowldge, don't put it on your PC. If you have a medical condition, most employers will provide you with the privacy that you need to take care of it (private office for the phone call, etc). This does not mean that it's ok to look for pictures of VD to see if you're ok, or if you do that the employeer can't question you on it.

      No one but you and maybe God owns your soul or even your thoughts (so far anyway). Think all you want, make as many free choices you wish, once you put those thoughs and choices on a machine that is owned by someone else, you're violating your own privacy and making that information public.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    28. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, in my organization (a large university), my first call would be to my boss. The second would be to legal counsel within the University, and I would tell my boss exactly that. For incidents of this type, there are people who are trained to handle it, including making sure that the chain of evidence is preserved.

      The call to my boss may actually be after legal, actually. I do not want any part of this action. Since there have been incidents of this type here, the policies have since been clarified. (Pervo pleads guilty, sentenced in porn case -- and yes, Pervo is the perpetrators last name.)

      If you're looking for example policies, the University of Minnesota policy library is public: Policy library.

    29. Re:How about go through proper channels? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when is choosing not to rat someone out to the cops the same as condoning their behavior?

      Every single time.

      Um, I have to disagree with that. While, as a rule, I would certainly agree with the idea presented, but ratting to the cops isn't always the best solution to the problem.

      Take my neighbor's kids. (Please!) I have reason to suspect they're smoking pot around the yard. If I rat to the cops and the cops come, find shit, and arrest the kids, the mother will get evicted. This is a drug-free neighborhood. Now the kids are in trouble, the mother (and two brothers) are homeless, and the only thing the family as a whole has learned is "fucksl4shd0t's an asshole". The two kids who I suspect are doing this are around 13 years old. When my wife was 13, she was smoking pot and doing a hell of a lot more. Yet, according to your rule, the legal system should take care of these kids.

      Another scenario, this one more contrived. Say you see kiddie porn on someone's hard drive. You also see the kind of porn that's real pictures of women being raped. And you're a woman. That's gotta be part of the scenario. :) So you go and rat to the cops. The cops come and investigate and are unable to do anything about it. The guy thinks about it and figures out that you must have found and said something. So he comes along and rapes/kills you. Was it such a good idea to put your fate in the hands of law enforcement?

      In a perfect world, yes, taking matters up with government authorities is a good idea. However, there ain't no such thing as a perfect world.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    30. Re:How about go through proper channels? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      "...no company owns my sole(sic), even for eight hours a day. When we enter work we do not become property of the company."

      The company doesn't own your soul. It owns the computer you're running. The company paid for, and owns, the hardware. It has (presumably) paid for and licensed the software. It pays the bandwidth bill. The company therefore has a right in saying how you use the things it owns.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    31. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Kevitt · · Score: 1

      Your company does not own you.

      Well, no... but your Systems Admin does! ;)

    32. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Finally, here's a little exercise for you." None of which is done at the business place. That's a bullshit argument. The machine belongs to the company, not you. Your time for those eight hours belong to the company, not you. When you communicate on their dime, it should be for that dime, not your personal self.

    33. Re:How about go through proper channels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cops not convicting someone with a real live pic of child porn, oh the hilarity.

    34. Re:How about go through proper channels? by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1
      No HR is NOT the proper channel, a FELONY was commited, the only proper channel is the police. Why is that so hard for people to understand. If a murder occours in the lobby do you call HR? No, you call the police. HR is for minor squables or at the most sexual harasment claims, not for serious felonies.

      So I assume you'd feel the same way if you happened to look over and notice a *nix user watching a DVD on his lunch break?
      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    35. Re:How about go through proper channels? by lgftsa · · Score: 1

      Of course, there is a threshold to everything - a cracked plastic cover over a working brake light is illegal, but not worthy of a call to the police. A long-term non-operational set of lights (in a situation where it is dangrous) is worthy of a quiet word to the operator, then a call to the DMV is it's ignored.

      Your first example - This is a drug-free neighborhood. - Well, I hate to break it to you, but by your own admission it isn't. So, if your attitude is the same as the rest of the people who voted to create a DFN in your area, you are all hypocrites. You obviously have passed a local resolution(is it law?) and are choosing to apply it selectively. That is ILLEGAL in the US, and immoral everywhere. You don't decide who the law applies to, the legal system does. If there are mitigating circumstances, they will be weighed by an authority(legal/social), not by the mob.

      Your second example is completely contrived, and I can only say they you should probably stop watching CSI/L&A/etc for a while - at least until you can live in the real world without transposing onto it fictional court cases which are developed by a team of writers and psychiatrists whose aim is exactly what you have succumed to.

      PS, as the person who is modded down said - Do you really think that someone could get away with having those pictures with no consequences? Bullshit.

    36. Re:How about go through proper channels? by D'Arque+Bishop · · Score: 1
      Nice strawman there. There are laws that make it illegal for companies to tap your phone calls. Why should it be any different for your use of the computer?

      The analogy is a little flawed. This isn't the equivalent of tapping the phones or listening into phone conversations. This is the equivalent of looking into a company-owned filing cabinet that you're using. Last I checked (and no, IANAL), checking those is still perfectly legal.

      Just my $.02...
    37. Re:How about go through proper channels? by etymxris · · Score: 1
      The company therefore has a right in saying how you use the things it owns.
      The company owns the computer, but not all the information on it. Let's go back to the phone. Does the company own every conversation you have on the work phone? No. So what if your company is using VoIP. Suddenly it owns all the content of all your calls?

      You must realize that there is little functional difference between different modes of communication. When the computer is used as a communications tool, the company does not own all the information that goes through it. And it's a mere matter of implementation that a web browser maintains a damning history of activity where a simple phone does not.

      Consider this scenario: You log into a webmail account through work. The GET/POST information from your session with the webmail server is stored on either the proxy logs or the machine's cache. Would the company be justified in sniffing out that information and using it to log into your webmail account and read all your personal correspondence?

      Information is not a physical thing. There is much information that a company has access to but still does not own. They own the physical machines used to store that information, but not the information itself.

      No one is arguing that this distinction doesn't hold. Let's say I put an MP3 on my work computer. Does the company suddenly own all rights to that MP3? No. Just because something is on a work computer does not mean that it is owned by the company. What you're arguing is that this distinction doesn't hold for workers. Why you're holding this, I don't know. It doesn't seem a very rational belief.
    38. Re:How about go through proper channels? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Take my neighbor's kids. (Please!) I have reason to suspect they're smoking pot around the yard. If I rat to the cops and the cops come, find shit, and arrest the kids, the mother will get evicted. This is a drug-free neighborhood. Now the kids are in trouble, the mother (and two brothers) are homeless, and the only thing the family as a whole has learned is "fucksl4shd0t's an asshole". The two kids who I suspect are doing this are around 13 years old. When my wife was 13, she was smoking pot and doing a hell of a lot more. Yet, according to your rule, the legal system should take care of these kids.

      I interpret that to mean that they are smoking pot on YOUR property? You have every right to report them--if they get caught otherwise you may well be neck deep in shit because two minors were doing something illegal on a chunk of dirt that is your responsibility. Now, perhaps you ought to have a word with the mother first, but after a while..you made your good faith attempt to get it resolved, call the cops. So they get evicted. that sucks. It would also suck for you to get brought up on drug charges because of someone else's kids

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    39. Re:How about go through proper channels? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Your first example - This is a drug-free neighborhood. - Well, I hate to break it to you, but by your own admission it isn't. So, if your attitude is the same as the rest of the people who voted to create a DFN in your area, you are all hypocrites.

      I moved into the neighborhood, I didn't create it. However, I don't think that a family should be broken up over something like that that should really be dealt with in a non-legal fashion. I disagree with drug laws, therefore I want no hand in enforcing them.

      Your second example is completely contrived, and I can only say they you should probably stop watching CSI/L&A/etc for a while - at least until you can live in the real world without transposing onto it fictional court cases which are developed by a team of writers and psychiatrists whose aim is exactly what you have succumed to

      It's not as contrived as you might think. First off, I don't watch TV because TV makes you just as stupid as pot does, if not more so. I don't smoke pot either. Second, I have known women who were in similar situations to what I described who reacted that way. When a woman has been raped once or twice before, she has reason to fear again.

      That is ILLEGAL in the US, and immoral everywhere. You don't decide who the law applies to, the legal system does. If there are mitigating circumstances, they will be weighed by an authority(legal/social), not by the mob.

      If our legal system actually worked, I would whole-heartedly agree with you. 'nuff said?

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    40. Re:How about go through proper channels? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they own it, but they do have a right to inspect it.

      If you've signed an agreement restricting your use of company resources to company use, and most of us have, then there shouldn't be anything incriminating on their for them to find; it should only be stuff you've done for them.

      If, on the other hand, there's something personal on their machines, you've violated an agreement.

      The company has two choices: They can assume you're guilty of breaching the agreement and sack you, or they can assume you're not, and that everything on your computer is there as a result of your work.

      If you don't want your employer to find out personal details about you, don't use their computers, or phones, for personal things. You're not supposed to be doing that anyway.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    41. Re:How about go through proper channels? by etymxris · · Score: 1
      If you don't want your employer to find out personal details about you, don't use their computers, or phones, for personal things.
      Back in the heyday of phones, some employers started snooping on personal conversations of their employees. This was made illegal. But now, you can snoop on someone using VoIP, though you can't snoop on someone using the hard line phone. It's an inconsistency in the law.

      The legislator back then realized that you have some privacy even at work. Due to the evolutionary path of computers in the work-place, it'll be longer for the same regulations to govern some of the more complex communications devices. But regardless, your employer does not own all your communication, even if you use their hardware to make it.

      I don't know about you, but not all agreements carry weight. Most of the NDA agreements basically amount to an EULA. Orwellian agreements should be unenforceable. Luckily, they usually are not enforced. Are you telling me that your CEO never emails his family from work, or talks to his kids on the work phone?
    42. Re:How about go through proper channels? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      I interpret that to mean that they are smoking pot on YOUR property? You have every right to report them--if they get caught otherwise you may well be neck deep in shit because two minors were doing something illegal on a chunk of dirt that is your responsibility. Now, perhaps you ought to have a word with the mother first, but after a while..you made your good faith attempt to get it resolved, call the cops. So they get evicted. that sucks. It would also suck for you to get brought up on drug charges because of someone else's kids

      That's a good conclusion, except that I didn't tell you that my neighbor is my upstairs neighbor. We live in the same house, I live in the basement, and her and her drug addict kids live upstairs. So there's not a lot of danger, especially since it's a rent-house. Otherwise, you're absolutely right, I would have to say something, if only to cover my own ass.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  8. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by seinman · · Score: 5, Funny
    What's the big deal?
    Boobs.
  9. Only an idiot... by seanadams.com · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Only an idiot would get all high and mighty, and call the police right away. He deserved to be fired.

    Tell your boss and let the company deal with it. Don't embarrass yourself and your employer all in one go. Sheesh, this is worthy of a front page story?

    1. Re:Only an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possession of child pornography is a serious criminal offence. How do you even know that the company will deal with it if you tell them? They may just cover it up and then fire you anyway and the situation will be worsened. Whereas if you go the police anonymously and prudently then the culprit gets busted and you stay in the clear.

    2. Re:Only an idiot... by dinivin · · Score: 1


      Only an idiot would post without first reading the article and discovering that they did report the incident to their supervisors.

      Dinivin

    3. Re:Only an idiot... by Tailhook · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sheesh, this is worthy of a front page story?

      Oh yes. Anytime one of our precious fellow geeks gets himself caught in the switches it is worth a front page story. Additionally, it is to be exaggerated and have as much drama associated with it as possible. In the end we'll chalk it up the oppression by da Man and blame it on Bush, then get back to fretting about whatever copywrite protection scheme we're most recently worried about.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:Only an idiot... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, change the situation. Say you're in the office, and an unstable co-worker who happens to be in favor with the next level of management takes exception to some action of yours and proceeds to beat the living shit out of you with a baseball bat.

      Do you "Work within the system" and let management discipline him, or call the cops and have his ass thrown in jail?

      If you say "call the cops" How is it different if you're not the victim?

      If you don't, when did you lose your self-preservation instinct, and did it hurt?

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    5. Re:Only an idiot... by www.whitehouse.org · · Score: 1

      Only an idiot would get all high and mighty, and call the police right away. He deserved to be fired.

      Tell your boss and let the company deal with it. Don't embarrass yourself and your employer all in one go. Sheesh, this is worthy of a front page story?


      "Hey, I saw my boss whack Chuck in the basement, I should go make an appointment with the VP so that we can resolve this internally!"

      What a fucking coward you are! And who modded this moron up? "Wahh, I don't want to get involved. I'm a spineless craven without the ability to think for myself. I must go to my boss so he can tell me what to think and say!"

      It's doormats like you that have made the world what it is today. Maybe if people stood up for what was right, rather than roll over for anything that might cause them any discomfort, there'd be less crime. But what can be expected from someone who just wants to download MP3s and watch porn all day?

      --
      Mod me down and I shall become more trollish than you can possibly imagine!
    6. Re:Only an idiot... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 3, Insightful


      So lets see, you find a coworker murdered in a storage closet. You go inform your manager at Waste Management, Inc. He pounces for the phone, and tells you to proceed to your next task, which happens to be on another floor. Oddly enough, the police didn't come by to question you about the body. You still let the company deal with it???

      I find it incredible that anyone could think that its an employee's duty to withhold information on felony activity occuring at a workplace. Or perhaps you think one needs to be sympathetic to a company's concerns while child molestation is being committed? Its people like you that let clowns from Enron swindle investors.

      And yes, its obviously the employee's duty to inform their manager first. Which is what they did. How likely is it that two employees previously with good work records BOTH lose their jobs because they simultaneously are performing substandard work?

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    7. Re:Only an idiot... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Hey, I saw my boss whack Chuck in the basement, "

      What your boss and Chuck do to each other in the basement are acts between two consenting adults, and you probably shouldn't comment...

      (sorry your choice of words brought out the smart-ass in me ;) )

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    8. Re:Only an idiot... by GrassyKnowl · · Score: 1

      I hope the employees win multi-million dollar judgements against their foremer employer.

      And I hope the former employers also gets charged felonies for being accomplices in covering up a child porn crime.

    9. Re:Only an idiot... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      And exactly who is the victim of him having the child porn?

      Keep in mind, the porn would have been produced and existed whether he possessed it or not.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    10. Re:Only an idiot... by ChemicalSpider · · Score: 1

      Ok, their employers helped in the investigation. They commended the employees for reporting the crime. The employees were fired for supposedly unrelated reasons. As much as I'd like to trust InformationWeek, they only got one side of the story.

      If the employees were fired for blowing the whistle, then I would agree that they should win the lawsuit. But it could also be that the employees became so distracted with the situation that they were no longer productive. Like it has been said before, we're going to ahve to leave this up to the courts to hear both sides - we only got one.

      Though, I'm sure everyone would agree that Collegis Inc wasn't trying to cover up any crimes.

    11. Re:Only an idiot... by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      Keep in mind, the porn would have been produced and existed whether he possessed it or not.

      So you agree that it's alright for folk to look at underage pornography?

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    12. Re:Only an idiot... by glenstar · · Score: 1
      Ah, but be careful! The argument "Smoking dope is a victimless crime" has been turned upside down by "Everytime you smoke a joint you are funding terrorists". Is child porn victimless? That really depends... an 8 or 9 year old kid being shafted by some greasy fat bastard definitely has a victim. A photo series of a 16 year old nymphet from Russia (where 16 is the age of consent) could be completely victimless. However, in the US you will go to jail for having those pictures.

      Don't get me wrong, child porn is an abomination, but as with everything, some common sense must be used in dealing with the supposed perps.

    13. Re:Only an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh-heh. Yeah, I didn't think of it til after posting. But then, where I grew up, whack meant whack, not whack off.

    14. Re:Only an idiot... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      So you agree that it's alright for folk to look at underage pornography

      Is it alright to hire a hooker? Is it alright to smoke pot? Is it alright to copy a CD for a friend? Is it alright to go 60 in a 55?

      You tell me.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  10. Whenever I encounter misdoings by A+Proud+American · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... I simply report them anonymously.

    That way, the perpetrator gets punished, I am left out of the deliberations, and everyone's happy.

    Just email the URL or IP address to the proper authorities (your boss, the police, etc.) from one of your anonymous email accounts and you're all set (use a proxy too).

    1. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Enramot · · Score: 1

      so, you're an Anonymous Coward then.

    2. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's just a proud American.

    3. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you report it anonymously, do you expect the cops to be able to act on the info? They're going to sieze a computer in order to obtain evidence, based on an anonymous tip? Surely you can see how this could be abused.

      Anonymous speech has no credibility.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >... I simply report them anonymously.

      It's not that simple. There are too many situations where you are the only person who knows, and everyone realizes that. You're imagining "small fish in a huge organization" where a whole lot of people could witness the same incident, but that's not always the case.
      I expect the person in the story to be the only
      one who had the authority or opportunity to even look where he did.

      But I do not buy the notion that a corporation should be protected from "embarrassment" based on the crimes their employees commit. Consider accounting crimes and insider trading, for example. Substitute "Insider Trading" for "Child Porn" in the story, and see if you get the same answers from the same decision makers involved.
      I believe I have signed a document that says I *will* report such things, without delay. It certainly does not require me to cover up crimes I witness.

    5. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Arker · · Score: 0, Troll

      So what you're saying is you're not just a snitch, you're a cowardly snitch?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    6. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

      Better to remain anonymous and watch the guy get busted from a distance than have your neighborhood watch you get supenoed for testimony.

    7. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by tmark · · Score: 1

      But I do not buy the notion that a corporation should be protected from "embarrassment" based on the crimes their employees commit. Consider accounting crimes and insider trading, for example.

      Of course not. But SOME consideration has to be made for your employers, and you have to give them SOME chance to rectify the situation in a manner that is reasonable, even in a situation like insider trading. You are their agent, after all.

      In such a situation, some professional governing bodies recommend that you report the incident to your supervisor. If management refuses to act, you THEN have an obligation to 1) abstain from any activity connected to the illegal act, and possibly 2) seek legal counsel as to whether you are obligated to report the matter to legal authorities.

      Obviously there is some subjectivity to the application of these rules - obviously you would react differently depending on whether you had evidence that the guy was going to plan a bombing in the next few days, versus if you had evidence they were illegally sharing Madonna MP3s.

    8. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, I don't think anyone ever questioned that being cowardly was the easy way out.

    9. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      says who? oh.....

    10. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by cperciva · · Score: 1

      Obviously, one would include some evidence. Send an email which reads "I found this on Foo Bar's computer" and attach one of the images.

      Sure, someone could be falsely accused in this manner, but the accuser would need to have gained access to the picture from somewhere.

    11. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Obviously, one would include some evidence. Send an email which reads "I found this on Foo Bar's computer" and attach one of the images. Sure, someone could be falsely accused in this manner, but the accuser would need to have gained access to the picture from somewhere.

      I'm pretty sure that most of we folks reading Slashdot would be able to find some pretty horrible images without too much effort. So, all one needs do is find an image, attach it to an "anonymous email" and watch anyone's computer equipment being confiscated by the police?

      Pardon me for stating that I have a problem with this scenario.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    12. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who was the fucking braindead moderator who modded the above as a troll? Do you even know what a troll is? I would call the above comment insightful, others would call it flamebait, but to call it a troll just shows that you are an idiot moderator with no clue. It is clueless fucks like you who have turned slashdot into crap.

    13. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by cperciva · · Score: 1

      Well, the catch is that when the police don't find anything, they'd investigate where the "anonymous" message came from.

    14. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "Obviously, one would include some evidence. Send an email which reads "I found this on Foo Bar's computer" and attach one of the images."

      Given that it would be illegal to email such an image, this is something you'd only do if the email were truly anonymous.

      You and I might be using a mixmaster chain to send anonymous emails, but many potential 'whistleblowers' will consider Yahoo Mail to be anonymous, and will then be the subject of an investigation themselves.

      Of course, eventually you'll just be able to say "Found a picture with MD5 hash x", and the feds will compare it to their unsurpassed porn collection to confirm it. I think this will backfire when they get the hundred-billionth message, and end up with more images than MD5 hash-space ;-)

      What kind of investigation can you run when evidence can be deleted, but it's illegal to copy? If you have enough access to someone's machine to detect something illegal, who's to say you didn't use that access to their machine to plant something illegal?

    15. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by beebware · · Score: 1

      But sending the picture on would put you in possesion of kiddie porn - which is illegal and would get you arrested also...

    16. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by cperciva · · Score: 1

      Given that it would be illegal to email such an image, this is something you'd only do if the email were truly anonymous.

      Distributing child pornography for the purpose of reporting it to law enforcement is not illegal. (Even if it violates a literal reading of the law, no jury would ever convict.)

    17. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A live rabbit is better than a dead lion.

    18. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      I've unintentionally stumbled across everything from anime characters having their intestines ripped out to guys getting run over by a subway. And that's just from trolls on /. I can find you a thousand mutilated corpses in 20 minutes but I don't have a clue where I'd get a picture of a teenager with her pants down. Can other folks reading /. really come up with this stuff without much effort?

    19. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "Distributing child pornography for the purpose of reporting it to law enforcement is not illegal."

      The Angry Parents' Association for the burning at the stake of pornographers has this to say on their FAQ:

      I monitor the web for child pornography. Can I be arrested for this?

      Regardless of your motivations, the police and the FBI can arrest you if you download child pornography from the internet and store it on a disk or a computer. Also, you are breaking the law if you receive or send child pornography. Juries have convicted several defendants who claimed to be acting as reporters and researchers when they downloaded and distributed child pornography.


    20. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you report the misdoing anonymously nothing will happen. When you say "whenever I encounter..." you are implying that you have encountered bad things and reported them anonymously. Didn't you notice that nothing at all happened?

    21. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by cperciva · · Score: 1

      Looking for child pornography for "research purposes" is quite a different matter from stumbling across it by accident and storing the evidence.

    22. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      Of course, if you work in a sysadmin capacity, you could easily plant the evidence on the machine in question. It certainly wouldn't be difficult.

      And even if that's not the case, the way the FBI acts wrt confiscating evidence in cases like this can be devastating to the accused. Remember Steve Jackson?

    23. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by DancingSword · · Score: 1

      IF one calls-in an anonymous tip, AND
      - one gives WHAT one found
      - one gives WHERE one found it
      - one gives WHY one was finding it
      - one gives WHY one's accusation should be accepted ( I'm a troubleshooting tech called in to fix the machine from ___ kind of problem ), and
      - one gives WHY one requests that one remain anonymous ( having not given one's name, but having sorta given one's job-assignment )

      then it is a different equasion.

      As for "anonymous speech has no credibility", sorry, but I don't buy that: Authority tends to use anonymous accusation in order to leverage itself against human-worth, so Authority ( that which assumes itself to be the only god ) holds anonymous speech to have credibility, only when that increases its control on others, and
      Ideas that are credible, are credible, no matter whom gave them ( whether we know 'em or not )
      - to assume that ideas are made nonvalid by anonymity is to assume that mathematics/physics forms, the root-forms of our Universe, haven't credibility merely because we haven't an authorized signature ( and credentials ) from Universe's origin, and that be daft, eh?

      ... also, it assumes that critique of Totalitarian ways-and-means can't stand on its own, but has to rely on Some Named Author, and that isn't rational, to me.

      - - one of my biggest beeves with politically-motivated idiocy: "I Labelled You Conservative/Liberal, therefore YOU are non-valid, and no-one need consider any idea you seem to associate-with" is disgustingly naïve - consider the issues, directly, and deal-with the issues, honestly - -

      ... note also, that they way I suggest anonymous tips work would reduce the Using of Feeble Accusation ( for authoritarianism's gain ), which probably wouldn't be appreciated by any administration that considers its Totalitarian Glory so utterly important as to remove requirement-for-correctness from their Total ( accusatory ) Information Awareness program...
      make of that what you want..

      --
      Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
    24. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      IF one calls-in an anonymous tip, AND
      - one gives WHAT one found
      - one gives WHERE one found it
      - one gives WHY one was finding it
      - one gives WHY one's accusation should be accepted ( I'm a troubleshooting tech called in to fix the machine from ___ kind of problem ), and
      - one gives WHY one requests that one remain anonymous ( having not given one's name, but having sorta given one's job-assignment )
      So I just have to come up with a bullshit story that addresses those concerns, and then I can have cops kick in the door to some innocent person's house? And when it turns out to be a hoax, I face no consequences.
      to assume that ideas are made nonvalid by anonymity is to assume that mathematics/physics forms, the root-forms of our Universe, haven't credibility
      No, it is very different.

      If I anonymously present the idea without credible backing that there are little green men on Mars, then you can verify or refute that without doing anything that "bad." You can point your telescope at Mars and say, "Oh, there they are, Anonymous Coward was right." Or you might not see the little green men, in which case at worse, your time might have been wasted.

      If I anonymously present the idea that there's kiddie porn on your computer, nobody has any way of finding out, except for cops to break into your house by force and to sieze your computer and check it for evidence. By the time the truth is learned, it's too late, damage has been done.

      I'm not saying an idea has no validity if anonymously presented, just that verifying the idea can be very expensive. If cops are going to kick in my door on a tip, there damn well better be someone who is at least betting their reputation and honor.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    25. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by DancingSword · · Score: 1

      2 points:

      1. I'm incompetent, in that I assume integrity means-something to others, generally, and is inherently valid, so .. probably I should just shut-the-f*ck-up and go, since Civilization isn't some place I've got any .. basis in..

      2. there's a difference between the Constables On Patrol going into some corporation and using 'dd' to copy a drive, to discover truth, making-it-clear that they don't know if the information they have ( accusing ) is correct or not, and
      them smashing into your/my home, raping our personal-space, removing our personal / personal-business resources, and operating on the CertainOfGuilt until Proven Innocent method.

      ... to me.

      --
      Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
    26. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by DancingSword · · Score: 1

      The Third, of my 2 points:

      3. "dd if=Person'sChildPornContainingPartition of=stdout | bzip2 -n whatever > /dev/cdrecorder.

      call it in anonymously,
      mail in the CD's, marked to associate 'em with the call,
      wear clean cotton ( photo-lab ) gloves for handling the CDs so no obvious fingerprints are on it ( DNA testing would still pin you as the origin ), use block-lettering on the CD-mailer so no amateur graphologist will have enough to label you, at work, should they see the mailer

      Hard Evidence, of something, anyways, but if you're messing with someone's drive enough to be doing this, you can be accused of putting the stuff on their drive, obvaeneously.

      Or, just accommodate 'em, and pretend you have no responsibility for your community's safety und condition.

      --
      Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
    27. Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings by DancingSword · · Score: 1

      Final comment: I'd been under the impression that after getting such accusing-information, police would investigate, by seeing if the person accused was hitting child-porn sites, and then they'd have ( from their side ) indisputable evidence, rather than just stomping someone based on hearing-about-something.

      [ simply discovering what their ISP is, asking for IP addresses of his machine and his visited-URIs, checking the visited-URIs to see what they actually are, and if they are child-porn, then escalate to "get ALL logs of his activity" and apply for a search-warrant, right? this is only a guess... ]

      Obviously 'police investigation' tedia don't get front-page status like the bits of interaction they have with us, that we notice/remember, but I believe that does not logically-mean investigation doesn't happen.

      Maybe in some nation/states *assumption* is sufficent for authoritarian enforcement, though opposing that sort of mode would be .. good to persist in doing.

      --
      Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
  11. See, listen, do by DJ+Rubbie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    See No Evil, Listen No Evil, Say No Evil, and keep the job.

    Actually, the companies who fire whistle blowers really do have something to hide, which also shows that they are untrustworthy with their business pratices.

    --
    Please direct all bug reports to /dev/null
  12. Absolutely not. by I+Am+The+Owl · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you discover that an employee has, say, anime on his machine, it is certainly not your business to go and report him. You are not the law, you have no moral authority, and you should therefore not be able to bring punishment down upon someone who has done you no wrong. Pure and simple.

    I know I would be very displeased if I found one of our system administrators playing "computer god" with our proprietary information. If he can't be trusted to keep the privacy of a coworker, then who's to say that he can keep the privacy of the company's trade secrets? He would be outta here in no time.

    --

    --sdem
    1. Re:Absolutely not. by Original+AIDS+Monkey · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between anime and child pornogrpahy. Admittedly, it's small. But there's a difference.

      --


      =======
      P.S. Bite! You've been bitten by the Original AIDS Monkey! You have AIDS now!
    2. Re:Absolutely not. by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy. Anime is completely legal and ok in anyone's book. Child pornography, OTOH, is an instant felony. Possession or distribution of said pornography is a serious offense in this country.

      Just remember: at work, you have no privacy. 99% of employees are tracked, watched, keylogged, logged, etc. Don't do anything at work your boss wouldn't like, period. If you're stupid enough to download porn at work, you deserve whatever happens when you get caught.

    3. Re:Absolutely not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when possessing anime is illegal?

    4. Re:Absolutely not. by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

      Police are not the law either. They enforce the law. We as voting citizens have no moral authority? What's the point in democracy then? Furthermore, there is such thing as citizen's arrest. Even though there is citizen's arrest, you still say we can't even REPORT behaviour to those who have authority?

    5. Re:Absolutely not. by rizawbone · · Score: 1
      If you discover that an employee has, say, anime on his machine, it is certainly not your business to go and report him.

      DEAR GOD NOT ANIME!!!111!!

      The legality of the situation just BOGGLES MY MIND. The ghost in the shell figure on my co-workers desk is GOING TO GET US ALL FIRED.

      I better go report his Chobits wallpaper now!

    6. Re:Absolutely not. by ecchi_0 · · Score: 1

      What about downloaded, fansubbed, episodes - particularly of a series that is already liscenced for distrobution in the US. That is at least "grey area".

    7. Re:Absolutely not. by rizawbone · · Score: 1

      What if the Chobits wallpaper is made from an image that he isn't legally able to have modified and displayed?

    8. Re:Absolutely not. by Arker · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy. Anime is completely legal and ok in anyone's book. Child pornography, OTOH, is an instant felony. Possession or distribution of said pornography is a serious offense in this country.

      You imagine a bright line where one doesn't exist. There are plenty of cops and judges and legislators that would think a lot of Manga is child pornography.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    9. Re:Absolutely not. by afidel · · Score: 1

      Well unless some sucessor to COPA is not struck down by the supreme court due to the fact that artistic renderings and computer generated images are NOT child porn then it's not a felony. The issue is that children are irreperably harmed during the production of child porn and so the mere possesion of it is contributing to the problem. This is the law as it stands. Several states have already passed laws that make it a crime to NOT report the discovery of kiddie porn, I don't care what my employer were to say about proper channels or embarasment, I am not going to take on the liability of potentially being charged for not reporting it.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:Absolutely not. by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of cops and legislators and judges who are annoying pains in the butts of the masses. A law banning making virtual child pornography (no actual children involved) was struck down, so I don't see what legal ground they would have, even if they think that Lain is child pornography.

    11. Re:Absolutely not. by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      read tjhe article. He had kiddie porn, not cartoons. Big difference, imo.

    12. Re:Absolutely not. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Refactoring time:

      "If you discover that an employee has, say, severed limbs in his desk drawer, it is certainly not your business to go and report him. You are not the law, you have no moral authority, and you should therefore not be able to bring punishment down upon someone who has done you no wrong. After all, you still have all your limbs, so what harm is it to you? Pure and simple."

      "I know I would be very displeased if I found one of our system administrators playing "hall monitor" with our proprietary meat storage. If he can't be trusted to keep the privacy of a coworker, then who's to say that he can keep the privacy of the company's trade secrets? He would be outta here in no time."

      Thank you. I'll be here all week.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    13. Re:Absolutely not. by linzeal · · Score: 1
      When I worked IT a few years back our policy was simple, you install a P2P client we lock all priveleges except saving documents and net access. You have porn, you go through the proxy server where we filtered you.

      We had one case of child porn, it was the new Director of IT on the East coast he came into the server closet plugged into the same proxy and it logged everything, including shady IRC transcripts. A few days later looking over the logs we figured out who had access to the server closet by looking at Datacard logs, by than he was leaving to go home to VA. He got on the plane and was visited by the FEDs when he got out of the plane. He had worked there for like a week, he was in his early 30's.

  13. Well, DUH... by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Informative

    An officer of a company is a representative of that company. While people are personally accountable for their actions on a criminal level, their actions are nonetheless that of the company, as well.

    Remember, a "company" doesn't exist. It's just an idea held by a group of people. Think of these people as your friends, because even if you don't like them, they are. They help provide for your welfare.

    Would you report your best friend's smoking weed? Would you report your father for voeyerism?

    Report this matter to your boss, and document (in writing) that you did so. Having effectively wiped your hands of the matter, enjoy your job.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Well, DUH... by feepcreature · · Score: 1
      Remember, a "company" doesn't exist...

      Actually in most countries a company does have a legal personality - that's how you can sue them when things go wrong (or lawyers get greedy). Or even if you get fired!

      As to when you report a friend or colleague - if their actions cause extreme abuse to other people (especially children), that should be a less difficult decision.

      Of course IANAL - which is why I can talk about ethics with a straight face :-)

      --
      Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
    2. Re:Well, DUH... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You're right, a company is just an idea. And sometimes, other ideas take precedence. If something you discover about an employee's conduct is harming the company (cooking the books, embezzlement, theft of company materials) then by all means, work within the company. But if you discover something that represents an immediate threat to the greater society (an assault by an armed coworker, for example), then the most important thing is to get the police there as soon as possible.

      Now, in the case described above, I wouldn't say that the child porn represented an immediate threat. Nevertheless, it's an ongoing one which concerns people outside the company. While I would be willing to send it through corporate channels, I also have an obligation to make sure that it does eventually get turned over to police, and that no evidence tampering occurs.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:Well, DUH... by axxackall · · Score: 1
      Think of these people as your friends, because even if you don't like them, they are. They help provide for your welfare. Would you report your best friend's smoking weed?

      In case of a friend I will at first try to talk to him (or her). If it will fail - I'll go to report. Friend or not friend - whatever is illegal is still illegal. But if I know and keep the silence and thus cover him - that is also illegal. I will warn my friend about it and give him an ultimatum - either he quits or if see it again - I report. In real life I talked like that to my friend and he quited.

      Now, let's get back to business. But with a different illegal case: Once I saw that what my boss is doing is illegally stealing money from investors. So, what do you want me to do in that case? Still to think about him as about my friend and thus cover him and thus also participating in such illegal operatiions although not having even a penny from such a risk? Or to talk to my boss and tell him that he is wrong and he should either stop or will go to cops or investors... or he will give me a share and I shut up haveing a sweet reason for it?

      In my real career once I was fired b/c I tried to talk to my boss about it. Just in few days after talking. I didn't give him any ultimatum. I did told that I have to report. I have just asked the question: what's going on and why is he doiing it. That was enough.

      --

      Less is more !
  14. What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For each child in a single picture, how many more are hurt by it propagating along the internet and encouraging more abuse?

    I think that there should be a law to protect whistleblowers, and perhaps some form of federal insurance that the can draw from in the event that they are retaliated against.

    Whistleblowing, wether it is calling the cops on pedophiles in the workplace, or terrorists in your apartment building, is a critical tool of law enforcement. Sadly, too many privacy nuts would rather shelter pedos for the sake of being able to post anonymous crap on message boards...

    1. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by John3 · · Score: 1

      That's why corporations need to have a "whistle blower" policy. I'm on the board of an insurance company and we spent a lot of time making sure our policy was comprehensive and protected staff who came forward with evidence of wrongdoing. If your company does not have a policy in place, demand that they draft one ASAP.

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    2. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by bj8rn · · Score: 1
      Whistleblowing, wether it is calling the cops on pedophiles in the workplace, or terrorists in your apartment building, is a critical tool of law enforcement.

      Three words: In Soviet Russia...

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Three words: In Soviet Russia...
      Two words: nine-eleven

    4. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by shione · · Score: 1

      I think that there should be a law to protect whistleblowers, and perhaps some form of federal insurance that the can draw from in the event that they are retaliated against

      ther is, its called the witness protection act but I doub tit would be enforced in something like this. It's usually used for protecting witnesses in major organised crimes, where the big fellows fall but their 'minions' still linger around the streets.

    5. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by KrispyKringle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm more than a little curious how many people are wrongfully accused and seriously injured by whistleblowers vs. how many children are saved. No offense, but the argument that explicit media leads to further abuse or turns people into sex-crazed perverts is SO McCarthy-era.

      I would, of course, never defend kiddie-porn, but only because of the children harmed in the actual filming, not because it has some perverting effect on viewers. When Ashcroft wanted to charge those who possesed porn that was "simulated" kiddie porn, the Supreme Court (rightfully, in my opinion) struck it down. There are no thought crimes, and no laws prohibiting things which are explicit simply because they may (according to you; I would dispute the claim) have some sort of perverting effect on people. Extend that, and you end up with bans on explicit (non-kiddie) porn, explicit movies and television, and Mark Twain and J.D. Salinger.

      In comparison, quite a number of wrongful imprisonments spring to mind, especially when you comment on "terrorists in your apartment building." A Middle Eastern student (Jordanian, I believe) at NYU was arrested shortly after September 11 and held for a few months without a lawyer and only intermittent contact with his family because a hotel security guard claimed he had found a pilot's radio tranceiver in his room. It had, in fact, been found in the room beneath his, and he was completely exonerated of possessing a radio tranceiver (something that is not a crime, at least, not if you aren't Middle Eastern).

      Suspicion and accusations are not what we need to protect our safety, but they do aid in removing our liberties. Are we trying to merely defend our physical safety, or our society which embraces people without suspicions based solely on their accents on the sound of their last names? Some may be heroic whistleblowers, but others are just scared, suspicious fools.

    6. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sadly, too many privacy nuts would rather shelter pedos for the sake of being able to post anonymous crap on message boards...

      ????

      So, you wouldn't want to see whistleblowers (of childporn or anything else) 'able to post anonymous'?

    7. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For each child in a single picture, how many more are hurt by it propagating along the internet and encouraging more abuse?

      That's kind of the question, isn't it? Many people would say none are hurt (possibly not even the "child" in the picture because he or she may not even be a child). Even the definition of "children" differs from country to country: individuals who are considered "children" in the US are free to drink, have sex, and serve in the military in other nations.

      Whistleblowing, wether it is calling the cops on pedophiles in the workplace, or terrorists in your apartment building, is a critical tool of law enforcement.

      Punishing people who merely have been accused, often anonymously, (and the legal proceedings themselves are a kind of punishment) is a very effective deterrent. Unfortunately, it also destroys democracies because in addition to catching real criminals, it gives too much power to the state and to people over each other.

      Sadly, too many privacy nuts would rather shelter pedos for the sake of being able to post anonymous crap on message boards...

      Sadly, too many hysterical right wing nuts would rather be certain to throw dismantle our freedoms in return for an unproven and unvalidated assumption about connections between "bad" speech and criminal actions.

    8. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by belroth · · Score: 1
      Some of us have grown up and got past the code of "not telling tales".
      There has to be a balance between having public participation in law enforcement and having a gestapo/securitate/stasi/fbi having a substantial percentage of the population as informers.

      If you object to caling the cops then do you think there should be zero cooperation with the police? Why be a witness to a shooting after the perp has been caught if you refuse to 'phone in the crime in the first place. Why bother with a police force or have laws?

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    9. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yes and here in Cleveland a woman had a restraining order taken out against her contacting the police involving child abuse aligations against a neighbor. Not 6 months later the police arrested the neighbor for placing 5 children in her care in a closet for MONTHS including a 12 year old that weighed only 45 pounds. Although I dislike child welfare services and think that they have too little oversight I think that a couple of false allegations are a small price to pay to save even one child from such horrors.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      One word: whythehelldoeseverybodyhavetosaynineelevenalltheti me?

      It may get split by slashdot, but it's all one word...

    11. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the children must be saved... the species must expand! We must propogate! Save the children, they are the next generational car on a train that stretches out to infinity, and never reaches its destination.

    12. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by BZ · · Score: 1

      > I think that a couple of false allegations are a
      > small price to pay to save even one child from
      > such horrors.

      Given that such false allegations have a strong tendency to destroy people's lives, it's pretty debatable what false-allegation-to-saved-child ratio is still acceptable... Some hard numbers on what "a couple" means here would be nice.

    13. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 9-11 was the result of pissing off billions of people in ways that were left over from the cold war. Karma payback is a bitch.

    14. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Famatra · · Score: 1

      "For each child in a single picture, how many more are hurt by it propagating along the internet and encouraging more abuse?"

      For each picture, how many children are not molested because the person satisifies themselves on the picture, instead of seeking out some child?

      For true pedofiles (thoes that are exclusively attracted to prepubesent children) the only outlit that exists for their sexual tension is children or pictures of them, and given that choice I have no doubt that most would prefer the children NOT be harmed, the pictures viewed.

      *This all presupposes that sexual activity harms children (what age range?) which may or may not be true.

    15. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by CognitivelyDistorted · · Score: 1
      I don't think it works that way, though. People who have "deviant" urges tend to start with small things and gradually escalate. In this case, it could go thoughts -> looking at normal pics of kids -> hanging around kids -> child porn -> sexual advances toward kids, etc. (I don't want to disgust myself by taking the sequence any further.) It's easier to take small steps, and having child porn available makes there be more (and smaller) steps.

      Of course, not all who look at child porn take the next steps, and the law allows punishing people only for actually harming someone, not taking a step that might lead them to in the future.

    16. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sad fact is that the false allegations are just as capable of ruining lives as the abuse itself. My home town here is currently undergoing a scandal as DNA tests for the past years are being redone, since the police lab decided it wasn't important enough to actually do the DNA testing correctly, and that swearing in court that their results matched the cops' expectations was enough for them, since they could get the bignums in "solved" cases.

      Now imagine that you're the one falsely accused. Maybe your neighbor doesn't like your lawn. Or the person you cut off in the parking lot a few weeks back held a grudge. Maybe the cops are corrupt enough to have dna "evidence" done up against you. If you've got a ton of money, you get a good lawyer and manage to get off (public defense? pfff forget it), but what for? You're no longer innocent in the eyes of the public, you're the pedo who got away. It's sad that mankind has come up with crimes so horrible that the accusation alone is a permanent taint on your life, but that is how sex offenses with a minor are treated by many people.

      Besides, remember that for every time a cop arrests the wrong person, the right person is out on the streets still. (Assuming that a crime has been committed in the first place.) People whine about how guilty people slip by because we're too worried about the innocents, but what happens to the guilty person when the innocent one is arrested? The case is closed, the guilty person has won.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    17. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by sn0wcrash · · Score: 1

      You must also be in Houston. Between the DNA testing and the K-Mart bust... I can;t say I really have much confidence in the Housotn Police Dept.

    18. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any proof of such a pattern? This has long been an argument of conservatives against legal porn, that it turns people into addicts/perverts, always looking for more deviant stuff. Considering that mainstream porn isn't becoming increasingly deviant, I don't think that's really credible.

      What law only allows punishing people for actually harming someone? The laws against the posession of child porn certainly don't.

    19. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Bold Marauder:

      I want to e-mail you, but I'm not sure I've correctly de-obfuscated the e-mail address in your profile, and I need you to tell me if I've done it correctly. What I've come up with is boldmarauder@yahoo.com. Is boldmarauder@yahoo.com correct? boldmarauder@yahoo.com is your e-mail address, right?

      Thank you very much for your help!!!!

    20. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Bold Marauder:

      I want to e-mail you, but I'm not sure I've correctly de-obfuscated the e-mail address in your profile, and I need you to tell me if I've done it correctly. What I've come up with is boldmarauder@yahoo.com. Is boldmarauder@yahoo.com correct? boldmarauder@yahoo.com is your e-mail address, right?

      Thank you very much for your help!!!!!!

    21. Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that a couple of false allegations are a small price to pay to save even one child from such horrors.

      How many?

  15. Reason for Being Fired by Snover · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not quite sure about this one. The story submitter says that these people were fired because they gave the company a bad light, but this wouldn't even be about the company, since they were being outsourced. It was a computer of a professor at New York Law School, not a computer of someone at Collegis.

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
    1. Re:Reason for Being Fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first story hints at the whole porn-reporting thing being the reason, but the company's stated reasons are write-ups for tardiness, dress code, various job negligence, etc. The company didn't look bad until it was implied that employees of theirs got fired for adhering to the law, so it's hard to know who to believe.

    2. Re:Reason for Being Fired by Old+Man+Kensey · · Score: 2, Informative
      Snover writes:

      The story submitter says that these people were fired because they gave the company a bad light, but this wouldn't even be about the company, since they were being outsourced.

      The way these things usually go is like this:

      Very Big Outsourcing Customer: "One of your employees embarrassed one of our employees publicly. This embarrasses us publicly. What are you going to do about it?"

      Small Outsourcing Provider: "We will fire that employee, as quickly as we think we can get away with it, on any pretext we can find, and make sure he serves as an example to other employees to keep their mouths shut about you and yours."

      Big companies that buy from small companies exercise the power of the purse to get their way all the time, just like the US government does to make states pass legislation it can't itself pass (viz. 21 drinking age).

      --
      -- Old Man Kensey
  16. what should you do? by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny
    Blackmail!

    The pervert doesn't know you'll both get fired for reporting it.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:what should you do? by DaLiNKz · · Score: 1

      unless he reads slashdot.

      --
      I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
    2. Re:what should you do? by quitcherbitchen · · Score: 1

      "Blackmail's such an ugly word. I prefer extortion. The 'X' makes it sound cool."
      -Bender, Futurama

    3. Re:what should you do? by dnahelix · · Score: 1

      What's really funny is the guy who posted the same thing 5 minutes before you was modded TROLL.

      --
      Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
      They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
      I Hate \.
  17. goodies ? by initnull · · Score: 0

    If they are goodies, just leech it.

  18. He deserved to lose his job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He stepped wayout of line. A matter like that should be referred to either a superior, or internal security, who then handle contacting law enforcement. That man was a self-righteous fool, and deserved to lose his job.

    1. Re:He deserved to lose his job by Snover · · Score: 2, Informative
      They did first contact someone internal.

      When Gross saw the thumbnail pictures, he consulted with Perry, who reported the incident to their supervisor, Margaret Perley, another Collegis employee on site at the school, according to the complaint. In a meeting on or about June 13, the suit continues, Perley told Perry and Gross that she had contacted New York City's district attorney's office about the incident. On June 20, the New York City police confiscated Samuels' PC.


      It wasn't until AUGUST that these two employees actually went and talked to anyone directly:

      In early August, Perry had taken matters into her own hands by going directly to the FBI. Perry says she took that action because it was hard to gauge how the case against Samuels was proceeding, or even if there was a case. Perley "told us the police detectives didn't have enough information," Perry says. (Through a Collegis spokesman, Perley expressed support for Huber's letter but otherwise declined comment.) The New York district attorney's office says the case against Samuels--approximately 10 weeks from the discovery of the images until his arrest--proceeded normally.


      In any case, and complain if you like, but this is much more serious than having, say, some MP3s or something (which very arguably could be legal), since those aren't originating from the abuse of someone who will most likely become scarred for life.
      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    2. Re:He deserved to lose his job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >He stepped wayout of line.

      If someone is breaking in the building, or pulling out a rifle, do you go to internal security and up the chain of command, or do you call 911?

      What if I work in a bookkeeping office and I have evidene of a major incidence of accounting fraud? Dummy up? Tell someone who I believe will not report the matter? How am I to be sure that I will not be considered negligent for failing to report the crime?

      For exactly which crimes is it appropriate to report to the police, and for which is it appropriate to report to your manager, and who decides? What are the specific criteria? Is this a matter for the company to decide, or is it a matter of law?

      Might it even be a crime to forbid someone to report what they witness to the police? I imagine there could be some pretty strong defense tactics in the face of such an incident.

      When you insist that I not inform the law enforcement authorities of a crime I have witnessed, that might even be cause to include you as a defendant, as an accessory -- or even expose you under RICO, as a racketeering influence in an organization that is covering up a crime.

    3. Re:He deserved to lose his job by BenLev · · Score: 1
      I'm amazed at how many posters self-rightously assert that one shouldn't report felonies he encounters at work.

      I understand not wanting IT guys to become the copyright police, but serious felonies are different. If you see a man rape a coworker in the janitor's closet, shouldn't you call the cops? The law may not require you to speak up, but morality does.

      So the question is, where does child porn fall on the spectrum ranging from jaywalking to serial killing? I think child porn -- given that the market for new images directly leads to the exploitation of helpless kids -- is pretty far on the serious end of the scale. We're not talking about a bootlegged copy of "Matrix Reloaded" here.

      As to those calling for whistleblower protection, such laws exists for many federal and state issues. Learn more here.

      From what I can tell, a bunch of posters seem to believe that the "chain of command" and other coprorate culturisms should have trumped the basic humanity demonstrated by the plaintiffs in the case here. Maybe the law school would have covered up the professor's wrongdoing or incompetently allowed him to destroy the evidence before the police arrived. The whistleblowers prevented that and set an example.

      Unlike other "think of the children" laws, those banning child porn really do protect actual kids from real abuse.

    4. Re:He deserved to lose his job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any case, and complain if you like, but this is much more serious than having, say, some MP3s or something (which very arguably could be legal), since those aren't originating from the abuse of someone who will most likely become scarred for life.

      Not a Courtney Love fan, are you?

  19. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 0, Troll

    I believe that what is worse is how it is degrading towards men. Given how addictive it is, and the many cases where formerly up-standing memboers of respectable churches abandon their faith and families simply to feed their porn addiction.

    Yes, I believe that is what is worse, by far.

  20. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly the answer.

    What moron would call the cops first thing? You're like the stapler guy in Office Space right?

    That's idiotic.

  21. You fucking sellout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember the days when you were -1 and loving it. You've changed, man, it used to be about the trolling.

    1. Re:You fucking sellout by Original+AIDS+Monkey · · Score: 0
      Hey, it's not my fault people modded up a Dilhole link all the way to +2. I'm trying to get back to my home as quickly as possible.

      Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying

      Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.



      You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

      Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

      OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

      Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.



      All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save *BSD at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

      *BSD is dead

      --


      =======
      P.S. Bite! You've been bitten by the Original AIDS Monkey! You have AIDS now!
  22. Hmm. by Dthoma · · Score: 1

    Couldn't you just blow the whistle to the police anonymously a few weeks later? As long as you don't tell anyone else about it and leave a long time delay no one will realise that it was you (hopefully).

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

  23. What should I do? by sbillard · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you discover illegal goodies on a machine, what should you do about it?"
    Or, What would you do?

    wait for it...

    Use both hands; of course!

    *_rimshot_*

    'tap-tap' - is this thing on?

  24. A New Friend Whore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $$$$$exyGal, are you back again?

  25. 2 things by shione · · Score: 1

    ok to comment on that seriously, I'm not saying its right but perhaps it has to do with the loss of trust after someone has snitch on his/her own people, kinda like when somebody betrays their leader and joins the other side in a war or they're a double agent -- these people are never fully trusted again no matter what.

    for the person that gets fired for whistle blowing, if they can prove with hard evidence that thats why they got fired they should be able to use the anti dicrimination act (or the equivalent in your country)..... and embarass the company again.

  26. call the cops by Ryan+Stortz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Personally, if I found something as severe as child porn I'd definitly report him to the police. If I lose my job then I sue.

    There should be a law againist punishing whisle blowers.

    --
    Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
    1. Re:call the cops by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      If it were me--

      If it was warez or something else basically innocuous, I'd let it slide. But for kiddie porn, I would definitely report the guy to the cops. The law of the land ranks higher than the law of the company or the need to protect the company's good name.

      If I got fired for it, I would sue the hell out of the company for wrongful termination. Terminating me for disclosing felonious behavior on the part of a fellow employee is definitely dangerous ground-- IANAL, but it seems to me that a case could be made that by apparently encouraging all of its employees to look the other way concerning an egregious breach of the law, the company is promoting illegal behavior and could be subject to some criminal liability of its own.

      Anyone here who IAL, feel free to correct me.

      ~Philly

  27. First responsibility of a good sysadmin by Swampfox · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Make good off-site backups and take them to your house. :)

    --
    Swampfox
    Real Hacker (tm) Wanna-be
    Deals
    1. Re:First responsibility of a good sysadmin by belroth · · Score: 1

      NOT
      FOR
      CHILD
      PORNOGRAPHY

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    2. Re:First responsibility of a good sysadmin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHY
      NOT?

  28. So we let the boss decide what's illegal? by John3 · · Score: 1

    When you're at work you're acting as an agent of your employer. You should always go through your proper chain of command until the situation is resolved. The last step in the chain being law enforcement.

    The corporate chain of command doesn't apply to criminal activity, only to company policy. If you witness criminal activity then it is your responsibility as a citizen to report it. We can get into discussions about how bad the crime needs to be, but if it's a crime and you feel like it should be reported then why go to the boss first?

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    1. Re:So we let the boss decide what's illegal? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1
      but if it's a crime and you feel like it should be reported then why go to the boss first?

      Because it just might save the company a lot of embarrasment if the employee committing the crime is fired before he's arrested. Now, if after you report it to your boss nothing happens, you might feel ethically compelled to ask about why nothing has happened, and then, when you see that nothing will be done about it, you call the police.

      Of course, that's not what happened in this article...they did follow the chain of command and were penalized anyway.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    2. Re:So we let the boss decide what's illegal? by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Shit, the company should be embarassed if their net filtering software lets employees download child pornography.

      Sometimes a company needs a wake up call, and this was it for them.

    3. Re:So we let the boss decide what's illegal? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Shit, the company should be embarassed if their net filtering software lets employees download child pornography.

      I'm going to hold in my opinions about using net filtering software at all, and just say this. How the heck do you know he didn't ssh into his home computer and download it from there? Or go to an ftp site? Or download the thing using any method that doesn't use a browser, thus bypassing the net filter?

      Not to mention the guy getting caught was a professor...I'm willing to bet he had admin rights to his computer, and could disable all sorts of net filtering software

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    4. Re:So we let the boss decide what's illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because it just might save the company a lot of embarrasment if the employee committing the crime is fired before he's arrested. "

      But the law enforcement officials will tell you that delaying the investigation will destroy evidence and pollute the crime scene. It also might make you, your boss, and on up the "chain" accessories to the crime. If the crime falls under certain categories, it might even expose the company directors to racketeering charges (because they "should have known").

      Replace "porn" with anything immediately dangerous (automatic weapon) or more universally considered to be "illegal" (worthy of arrest), and see if you make the same analysis of the behavior of people involved in the case. I'm pretty sure if you were dealing with accounting fraud, outright theft, or terrorism, you would discover an inconsistency in the company's policy and actions.

      Either there was a crime to be reported to the police, or their was not.

    5. Re:So we let the boss decide what's illegal? by sketerpot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not going to hold in my opinions on net filtering software and address your post's parent: do you have any idea how easy it is to get around filtering software? Do you honestly think that filtering software actually works? You may think that filtering software is some magical technology that blocks out the filth on the internet while letting most legitimate pages through, but IT'S NOT! If more people understood this rather than turning to a magical "solution" that doesn't work, we'd all be a lot happier!

      How the hell do you know that this guy didn't run, say, Freenet? There are ways. How do you know he didn't use a CGIproxy over HTTPS? There are plenty available. Really, installing web filtering software is like seeing a bunch of barrels of apples, noticing that there is one rotten apple, tossing out the whole barrel, then declaring that you've gotten rid of all the rotten apples.

    6. Re:So we let the boss decide what's illegal? by hazem · · Score: 1

      Please tell me, what algorithm or software do you use that can stop child porn 100% while not stopping other legitimate access to the internet?

  29. Should read the other article too you know by ScottGant · · Score: 1

    Don't jump to conclusions. Take a look at the other article in which Collegis responds with:

    "Employment of the technicians ended due to issues completely unrelated to this isolated incident, which will become clear as the case progresses through the legal system. Claims made by the plaintiffs cannot be taken at face value and should not be trumpeted as fact via media when they are based solely on unsubstantiated allegations."

    Yes, it sounds like they're covering their collective asses, but can't they cover their asses AND be telling the truth? We're so cynical now a-days that we always want to focus on the most negative aspects of things.

    There is no spoon...

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
  30. Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Advise him to erase it, or at least encrypt it and transfer it to his home computer.

    So, are you unaware that his downloading said porn in the first place is financially and morally supporting the sites he got it from, whom in turn finance people who sexually molest their children?

    Or are you simply condoning child abuse?

    1. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny
      Or are you simply condoning child abuse?
      No, no, no, you misunderstand. What's he condoning is blackmail.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by chefbimbo · · Score: 1

      Not that I support child molesting but how is downloading kiddie pron supporting those sites?

      If he pays for it, that is another thing but in that case, law enforcement will sooner or later come knock his door anyway (you gotta be REALLY REALLY stupid to pay for childporn if you ask me).

      Then again, what does even constitute as child porn? I mean I have a 19 year old friend who could pass as 15 or 21 solely on what she's wearing that day...

    3. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not all kiddy pervs are motivated by $. By possessing that porn, the person in this example is giving 'aid and comfort' to photographers who abuse children and then get their jollies off further by seeing their 'work' spread across the internet.

      Also it encorages those pervs inbetween who are potentially abusers themselves. Since they can get the porn, and since others find it desirable to share, then what is depicted must not be so bad.

      So why not look at little suzy? It's just looking

      Why not touch little suzy, it's not serious...and my net friends told me they would too...

      Does that make things clearer for you?

    4. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 0, Troll

      Are you aware that reporting this is financially and morally supporting the police department, who in turn finance people who plant evidence, beat up minorities, commit perjury, and shoot innocent victims?

    5. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beat up minorities
      What is the problem with that? They're the ones doing most of the crime. (look at incarceration statistics sometime.)

    6. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then read about how statistics are compiled. Clue: you've gotta get arrested to get recorded.

    7. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      Child porn is the exploitation of those classified as children (under 18 in most countries, less in other countries).

      Downloading child pornography even for free is showing the masterminds behind it that there is a market and a demand for it.

      Tim

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    8. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by WNight · · Score: 1

      Have you actually ever used the internet? Who pays for porn? It's everywhere, and free. There are newsgroups whose names indicate illegal pictures and except for bandwidth charges, you don't pay to download them.

      Besides, how much "kiddy porn" do you think is someone molesting their kids and taping and how much is 16-yo Dutch chicks who are perfectly legal where the video was made?

    9. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Masterminds? Is fucking Dr. No making this shit now?

    10. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're forgetting about Usenet. There is no way for anybody to know how many times a file has been downloaded once it's up on a newsgroup unless they have access to every news server that carries that group (This is also true for Freenet, but since that system automatically duplicates files when they are requested, they could still make an educated guess based on the file's availability in distant parts of the network).

      Also, you're assuming that these "masterminds" think like the RIAA ("Duhh... if they're downloading it for free, that means they would have paid for it, too... duhh."), though I supposed they would have to be that stupid to stay in such a risky business.

    11. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Not all killers are motivated by $. By possessing movies of killing, the person is giving "aid and comfort" to killers.

      Hollywood movies encourages those pervs inbetween who are potentially killers themselves. Since they can get these horrible movies, and since others find them desirable to share, then what is depicted must not be so bad..

      * So why not look at a dead body? It's just looking.
      * Why not kill someone? It's not serious, movies say so.

      Does that make things clearer for you?

    12. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 1

      * So why not look at a dead body? It's just looking.

      I think you're confusing murder with necrophilia. At least, judging by the way you tried to change that example. Maybe I just don't get the point you're trying to make?

    13. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      it doesn't really matter, but that was just say if you were curious about killing, and wanted to start by seeing dead bodies...

      Anyway, my point was simply that viewing pictures of naked children doesn't necessarily make the viewer go out and molest children.
      The grandparent was saying that seeing pics could encourage people to molest children.
      I was just liking this to the argument that seeing violent movies encourages violence, seeing murderers in films encourages killing, and so on.

    14. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      The grandparent was saying that seeing pics could encourage people to molest children. I was just liking this to the argument that seeing violent movies encourages violence, seeing murderers in films encourages killing, and so on.

      Yes, you were, and it was very much a flawed analogy. Instead, liken it to seeing actual films of murders being committed, because kiddie porn is actually seeing pictures of kids engaging in sexual activities. Yes, I've seen it, and it's some scary shit. I've also seen drawings made with a different purpose, but essentially showing the same shit. The drawings aren't nearly as scary, because 1) they're not real, they're just something somebody drew. 2) They weren't drawn with the intention of giving someone a hard-on. Quite the opposite. 3) No-one was actually molested in the creation of the drawing.

      The reason those things make it so different is because in the real thing, you're seeing a kid who is actually being molested, and you're seeing exactly what is happening. And, like porn (in fact, this is the thing that separates porn from other picutres of naked people), the intent of the picture is to give someone a hard-on.

      The point is, you can't compare hollywood special effects and entertaining movies to kiddie porn because in the first case, what you're seeing isn't real (although they try to make it look as real as possible). In the second case, you're seeing something real.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    15. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Bold Marauder:

      I want to e-mail you, but I'm not sure I've correctly de-obfuscated the e-mail address in your profile, and I need you to tell me if I've done it correctly. What I've come up with is boldmarauder@yahoo.com. Is boldmarauder@yahoo.com correct? boldmarauder@yahoo.com is your e-mail address, right?

      Thank you very much for your help!!

    16. Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Bold Marauder:

      I want to e-mail you, but I'm not sure I've correctly de-obfuscated the e-mail address in your profile, and I need you to tell me if I've done it correctly. What I've come up with is boldmarauder@yahoo.com. Is boldmarauder@yahoo.com correct? boldmarauder@yahoo.com is your e-mail address, right?

      Thank you very much for your help!!!

  31. Not so simple by davmoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've already noted several posts here that say words to the effect of "report it to the boss" and "its not your problem to call the law".

    Unfortunately, that is not always such a simple decision.

    In some states, and I'm sure many more will follow, it is the law that, should you find evidence of child abuse or child porn, YOU are guilty of a crime if YOU do not report it immediately to authorities.

    You may be an agent of the company, but you are also subject to the laws of the state you are working in.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:Not so simple by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe you're right about being guilty for not reporting it.

      In Illinois and some states, if the cops pull you and your friends over after a night of drinking, they give everybody breathalyzer tests. If the least drunk guy is driving, they're happy. But, if you're in the car, the driver is drunker than you, then you get a ticket. Same goes for everyone else in the car.

      I know it's a stretch but it seems relevant to this thread for some vague reason. :)

    2. Re:Not so simple by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

      If you do not report it, you are and ACCESORY AFTER THE FACT. You can be arrested and tried as if you did it yourself.

    3. Re:Not so simple by $0.02 · · Score: 1

      What if you are the only sobber person in the car and have no drivers licence?

      --
      If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
    4. Re:Not so simple by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      I thought you had to be actively involved in covering up a felony to be an accessory. It seems to me that not reporting would be passive, not active.

      If you deleted the files as police were breaking down the door, that would be active.

    5. Re:Not so simple by benjamindees · · Score: 1
      That's the problem. Thought has nothing to do with it. These days, lawmakers can declare that "orange" means "purple" and judges have to bend over and take it because they are nothing more than the paid bitches of the State.

      Forget the separation of powers that you were taught in school. The Judicial branch is now the Executive. The Executive is now in charge of running *other* countries. And the Legislators are the same as always, saying that they're "doing what the masses want" while actually doing what lines their pockets and expands their authority. Bread and circuses for all!

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    6. Re:Not so simple by clifyt · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately, that is not always such a simple decision."

      Of course its a simple decision. You report it to the police AND your boss.

      Then again, any computer repair person that seems to think that looking at GIFs on a persons computer or reading text documents or looking at internet cache or history or any of the other things like that are NOT pursuing duties as defined by computer support. The last time my server crashed, I don't remember running to my picts directory to figure out what was going on. Last time I had to set up a backup for my computer, I either do my home directory OR my entire computer. Last time I needed to check to see why Adobe Photoshop wasn't working on someones computer (they shared the serials with someone down the hall), I didn't need to open up any images -- and that was the most OBVIOUS time I would have needed to see this stuff.

      There is NOTHING a computer repair person should be doing that involves touching anyones files. If the person is found to be possessing child pornography because of your snooping, its a VERY easy decision as to what you should do. It should also be an equally simple decision to your boss that you should be fired and criminal charges should be held against you for computer trespass. You are not a police officer or a moral enforment agent...

      clif

    7. Re:Not so simple by Ramze · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is an interesting idea... but, how would anyone know what you found unless you told someone in the first place? There are hundreds of gigs of data on PC's these days, and if you're just doing your job -- why would you be snooping to see what multimedia files are on that computer? Unless they have a file folder called "kiddie porn", then... it probably wouldn't be obvious that that material existed -- same for pirated programs and even ripped DVD's or mp3's.

      I've worked on computers for over a decade & the only time I've ever gone snooping through jpg files on someone else's computer was when I had family member's computers & I thought they might have some cool vacation pics they wouldn't mind me having a copy of. -- or if I was trying to specifically help them sort jpgs or needed to save what I could from a corrupt or dying hard drive before it failed.

      It seems unlikely that anyone could be prosecuted unless there is a law that specifically requires technicians to check for illigal material, even then, it could be difficult to prove that material wasn't copied or d/l AFTER the technician looked at the pc.

      I'd be interested in what the laws are on this issue...

    8. Re:Not so simple by Desert+Raven · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What if you are the only sobber person in the car and have no drivers licence?


      I've actually seen this. Some years ago, I was a police officer working on a sobriety checkpoint. Of course, the first thing we ask for is driver's license and registration. In this case, the kid didn't have one. But, he was also the only one in a car of four people who was sober.

      I can't remember exactly what we did in this case, but I know for sure that we didn't even come close to throwing the book at him. The kid was trying to do the right thing. If memory serves, we held them at the checkpoint until a responsible driver could come get them.
    9. Re:Not so simple by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

      No, if you don't do anything to stop the crime from occuring, you are technically an accessory after the fact.

    10. Re:Not so simple by platipusrc · · Score: 1

      In the process, according to the suit, Gross opened a folder titled "my music," within which was another folder, named "nime," then another, "nime2." It was here, Gross said in an interview, that he encountered the illicit content. "I didn't have to click on any files when I went into the folder," says Gross. "There were thumbnail images, so I was pretty much instantly exposed to that."

      If Gross hadn't opened those folders, he wouldn't have come across the offensive images in the first place. But Perry and Gross say it wasn't unusual for them to check the content of folders when troubleshooting; a large file, for example, can be an indication that a virus is at work.


      He didn't open the picture files. He was browsing through directories to see if there were any files that seemed like they might be oversized and might indicate that there was some sort of virus activitiy going on. When he opened the directory where the illicit photos were stored, he saw the thumbnails that the icon view in explorer provides. Besides, it's not as if a company computer would be the professor's private property. You shouldn't store anything on their computers that you wouldn't want others to see.
      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
    11. Re:Not so simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you actually read the article? The tech was trying to clean a virus off the system, which could easily involve touching personal files. How many viruses have we seen that replace all *.jpg files with *.jpg.exe files containing virus code? You wouldn't even have to touch the files in Windows; just open the directory and get a handy list of thumbnails (which was also stated in the article).

    12. Re:Not so simple by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Besides, it's not as if a company computer would be the professor's private property. You shouldn't store anything on their computers that you wouldn't want others to see.

      In the interest of accuracy, the article states that the computer was actually the professor's home computer (and presumably his own personal property). He had brought it from home because it was malfunctioning and he wanted the technicians to repair it for him.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    13. Re:Not so simple by TC+(WC) · · Score: 1

      That sounds like bullshit to me. If you were looking for large files, you'd just do a search for files greater than $blah size...

    14. Re:Not so simple by arakon · · Score: 1

      A lot of virii out there eats up drive space by making a whole lot of small files, ie looking for files of 'plah' size does jack. You analize directory structures and find out which directories contain the most material.

      PS this guy couldn't have been too smart, even if he was a prof, if he didn't zip the files and password protect them.

      But personally, I'm glad he didn't thats some sick $#!t.

      --
      "If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
    15. Re:Not so simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A ticket for what? I can't see how you can be driving under the influence if you're not driving.

    16. Re:Not so simple by davmoo · · Score: 1

      You bring up very good points, and I hope your post gets modded up.

      First off, if they don't already, any company that works on third-party computers should have a very explicit policy for when its okay to look at what files on a client's machine. And that policy should be strictly enforced, whether a crime is found being committed or not.

      Second, one thing I've learned in 20-some years of working on computers is users tend to be stupid. This prof had kiddie porn on his system. It wasn't encrypted. It was on his hard drive, not removeable media. And he let a third party look over his machine without doing anything about it? He deserved to get caught just for being stupid, the fact that he was hording kiddie porn just adds points :-)

      Finally, we must keep in mind that in this particular instance, we are only hearing one side of the story. What if the company is being honest, and did in fact fire the two employees for reasons both legitimate and completely unrelated to this case? Slashdot is, I'm sorry to say, well known for jumping in to the deep end of the pool head first when, in fact, it turns out the unpopular point of view was the correct one (for example, a while back when the dude was busted for stealing satellite TV documents from his uncle's law firm and then posted them on the internet...the Powers That Be at Slashdot tried to make this in to a free speech issue, when it was in fact nothing of the sort and the dude deserves to get a prison term). I have a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach that this is going to be the case again here.

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    17. Re:Not so simple by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The crime has already occurred.

    18. Re:Not so simple by danoatvulaw · · Score: 1

      But, if you're in the car, the driver is drunker than you, then you get a ticket. Same goes for everyone else in the car.

      that is crap, and you know it. what would they cite you for? last i checked, riding in a car while intoxicated is not a violation of ANY kind (unless you are underage). if they do indeed cite you for something, please tell me what it is, I would be eager to know what exact law they rely on.

      I believe you're right about being guilty for not reporting it.

      as for reporting a crime, you're under no affirmative obligation to report, unless you have a legal duty to do so, such as if you're a police officer... a private citizen has no reponsibility to report a murder even if they saw it happen right in front of them. Now, if the police wish to question you about it, obstructing their investigation is one thing, but simply failing to report it ... again, what charge?

    19. Re:Not so simple by Ramze · · Score: 1
      Wow... and me w/ no mod points -- I'd mod you up! I certainly agree that any company working with user's machines should have some sort of privacy policy for client's machines' data. Anything from a nobel-prize winning idea to picture of someone's wife in nothing but high-heels could be on a machine.

      Having said that, I think the Prof was a moron to leave anything incriminating on his office computer -- most places assume the machine and everything on it are the property of the office/university & can take a peek anytime they want or hand it over to a 3rd party for repairs.

      Slashdot??? One-sided? nooooo *sarcasm* lol.

    20. Re:Not so simple by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      I don't know what state you live in, but the state of Illinois, for a fact, will ticket you if you're not as drunk as the driver is. This promotes the least drunk guy driving every time, and settles any arguments before anyone gets in the car. Illinois has had great success with this system. If you think it's crap, talk to the Illinois legislators that passed the law. They'll tell you it works.

      As for reporting a crime, yes, you are in fact responsible. Here in Texas, once in awhile someone will get hit by a car or injured while on the shoulder or side of the road. The person that hits them ALWAYS gets charged. With what? Failure to stop and render aid. It's a law here that if you see people outside their vehicle, on the highway or major thoroughfare, that not only do you give them leeway, but you are required to stop and help. Beats going to jail for involuntary manslaughter and FtRA.

    21. Re:Not so simple by danoatvulaw · · Score: 1

      Your texas example only furthers my point. In texas, if you are involved in the commission of a traffic accident, it gives rise to a legal duty to stop and render assistance. In this case, you are correct. However, what I was talking about was a third party's duty to report a crime. A third party, say another driver who saw the accident, has no responsibilty to stop and render aid, only the driver who actually hit the other car. If the third driver decides to stop, great; if not, he doesn't have to.

      As for the illinois law, and please note I'm not being a wiseass on this, but do you know what it is called/can you find it on the statute books? I would really like to read what that law actually prohibits and some of the cases on it. To me it is incredulous that they could pass such a law and actually enforce it.

      danoatvulaw
      Not a lawyer yet (so dont take what I say as legal advice), but 2/3 of the way there!

    22. Re:Not so simple by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      You want to find the law? Go for it, champ. The search page is here: http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/default.a sp

      Trust me on this, half of my family lives in IL so I hear about wacky laws like this.

  32. Not My Job by Qrlx · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    If you're heading out into the cube farm to fix an end user's desktop, you ought to ignore everything that's not part of the problem.

    Now, if the hard drive was literally full, and the reason is that there's gigabytes of kiddie porn and no room for a temp file, then you'd be justified mentioning something. I'd probably say something like "You should delete the Candyman directory, it's taking up too much room. Is it okay if I go ahead and delete that for you?"

    Unless your organization has an acceptable use policy for the computers, and unless the employees are aware that personal files on their computers are going to be audited/double-clicked on by bored techies, and unless your job description specifically states that you are to monitor for unacceptable use, then you have no business snooping around. In my experience, 1/3 of the people never install stuff without approval, 1/3 of them install RealPlayer even if you tell them not to, and the other 1/3 install RealPlayer and everything else they can click on without even realizing it because they are clueless but thankfully the tech support guys are there to clean up the mess afterwards.

    Look, employees have to sit in front of these screens eight hours a day. Is it really anyone's business WHAT or HOW they decide to use their computers, so long as they are getting the job done?

    And what next, after you tell on the guy with kiddie porn? Bob has too many MP3s, Larry didn't wash his hands after using the bathroom, and Alice took an extra ten minutes on her lunch break. Nobody wants to work with a person like that. Just do your job, ignore the kiddie porn, and get on with your life. I would hate to be the director of IT, and have some techie ruin my week by coming up to me and telling me that some employee has kiddie porn on his computer. This was not a problem until some n00b techie started looking at stuff he shouldn't have and had to go blabbing his big mouth about it.

    Firing might seem harsh, but if someone with access to all the data in the company can't exhibit some discretion, I think it's justifiable.

    Of course, kiddie porn is sooo highly illegal in this country (rules of entrapment don't apply, etc.) that the firee probably can make a strong case that the only reason he was fired is because he alerted manegement to an endemic problem within the organization. That wouldn't get him his job back, but it would be a nice payback to get the U.S. Marshalls in their seizing hard drives and restoring from tape to look for any other kiddie porn on the company LAN.

    1. Re:Not My Job by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Is it really anyone's business WHAT or HOW they decide to use their computers, so long as they are getting the job done?

      Yes, because the way the law is structured regarding child pornography in this country, if you know about it being on Mr. X's pc, and you tell him to delete it (cover up), and later he's busted, you could get in trouble. Why? Because you condoned his felony actions and helped cover it up. Pictures of naked children in sexually explicit situations aren't even in the same GALAXY as someone not washing their hands after leaving the bathroom or downloading mp3s.

      There's a very clear moral line here that everyone except you can see. Maybe in Afghanistan it's ok to have kiddie porn on your work computer, but not in the USA.

    2. Re:Not My Job by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      I was about to fire off a quick flame, but having just though about it, I'm split now.

      On first looks, I was disgusted that you'd protect the privicy of someone who allows (and encourages) the abuse of children.

      But I also agree that a tech shouldn't be rummaging around somebodies hard disk without good reason. Certainly I don't think that computer use should be restricted in a draconian way, so long as work is still getting done, but at the same time if something is illegal, the company can be held responsible.

      If you have a legitimate reason to be checking the contents of someone's hard disk though, would you seriously just say "your child porn is taking up too much hard disk space, can I destroy the evidence of your crime for you?"

    3. Re:Not My Job by belroth · · Score: 1
      Arsehole.
      There is no way I could condone child pornography - leading to the emotional and physical scarring and possibly murder or suicide of innocent children.
      Most places have company policies over what is permitted on their hardware to cover the other stuff with which you try and confuse the issue.
      And what next, after you tell on the guy with kiddie porn? Bob has too many MP3s, Larry didn't wash his hands after using the bathroom, and Alice took an extra ten minutes on her lunch break.
      As I said, anyone who equates child abuse to bad personal hygeine is an arsehole.

      At best.

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    4. Re:Not My Job by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well without seeing exactly what pictures these techs saw, one can't say for sure, but I think 99% of 'kiddie porn' accusations are nonsense. They don't involve, say, someone kidnapping 5 year olds and photographing their rape and torture. Now, if this professor was actually doing that, then I'd have no problem throwing the switch on him. But something tells me that's exceedingly unlikely.

      Usually what's involved is someone that didn't produce the pictures, has no way to know their provenence and in no way contributed to their making, and the pictures in question are perhaps shots of 16 year old girls on nude beaches and the like. 16 years is the age of consent in a lot of countries you know. In the US it was formerly 12, in fact if memory serves 11 in one state. And there's no way to tell what age a model was in most cases anyway - is that a 16 year old, or an 18? Without knowing the provenence of the pictures and having records to prove the ages of those involved, it's simple conjecture, hiding behind outrage to avoid proving anything.

      Frankly, in the absence of evidence of some real wrongdoing (kidnapping, torture, whatnot) I'm extremely skeptical of the notion of simply possessing digital image files being a crime. I'm extremely skeptical, also, of a tech that would make a stink because he saw some naughty pictures on a professors machine. Like I said, without having been there and knowing all the details, I'll have to withold judgement, but it sure sounds to me like a couple of people that have proven themselves untrustworthy by their actions, caused a basically innocent man a hell of a lot of trouble, and deserve a lot worse than they're getting.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    5. Re:Not My Job by Maul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem is that this is not the employee's computer, it is the _company's_ computer. Most large companies do have an acceptable use policy, and most also have policies that employees will not use company computers to commit crimes.

      Unfortunately, once techie noticed the kiddie porn, he was in a "damned if he does, damned if he doesnt" position. He had three choices. He could go to the cops like he did and face being fired for exposing the company to embarrasment. He could have kept his mouth shut. However, that might make him legally liable for covering up the fact there was child porn in his company's computers. He could have went to his boss and let the company deal with it. However if he had done this and the company decided to sweep it under the rug, he'd once again be legally liable for not reporting the pr0n to the authorities.

      I would personally hate to be the sysadmin and discover kiddie porn on a computer in my network,
      however if if the IT department is theoritically in charge of enforicing a company's acceptable use policy, I see nothing wrong with them inspecting the hard drives of company computers periodically for abuses of said policy.

      MP3s and stuff might deserve a reprimand (and deletion) if found, but child pornography is a whole different ballpark entirely.

      Really, what is the bigger mess? Reporting it as soon as its found, turning over the pervert to the authorities and showing that most of your company is responsible and wont stand for this sort of thing OR not reporting it, having it discovered later by authorities, and then having your whole company be accused of harboring pedophiles?

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

    6. Re:Not My Job by kst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just do your job, ignore the kiddie porn, and get on with your life.

      Ignore the kiddie porn? Ignore clear evidence of a felony?

      What if you recognized one of the children in the photos? What if you (accidentally or otherwise) ran across a photograph of your neighbor's child, your niece or nephew, your son or daughter, being sexually abused? Would you just ignore it and get on with your life? If not, why would it make any difference if the children in the photographs are strangers?

      Ok, maybe you don't think child pornography should be a crime. What if you ran across photographs that provided evidence of bank robberies? Murder? Rape?

      !!!NUKE ALL ARABS GO AMERICA!!!

      Oh, I see. You're an idiot.

    7. Re:Not My Job by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Most places have company policies

      No company policy can ever trump your rights and obligations under the law. At best, they can clarify what your rights and duties are, but they can never replace what is required of you.

      If your State requires you to report something, and you choose not to report it, it might not be as strong a defense as you believe, that there was a company policy against reporting it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    8. Re:Not My Job by blanks · · Score: 1

      "Alice took an extra ten minutes on her lunch break"

      Could you explain how having Illegal material that sexually exploits children, has nothing to do with your work productivity, and is a federal crime has anything to do with extended lunch breaks?

      I think you may be on to something here.

      --
      I deleted my sig years ago.
    9. Re:Not My Job by belroth · · Score: 1

      I agree wholeheartedly.

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    10. Re:Not My Job by sfmarco · · Score: 1

      I wish I did not spent my moderation credits on other posts. Because you're post is definitly overrated.

      Your company tries to give you work for 8 hours, if they pay you for 8 hours. If you think you can do it in 7, then that is not an excuse to start downloading child porno, and jerk off on that.
      I don't care about that last part. It's a free world. It's the part that children are exploited for this. Forced (or make believe that it is really good). It's a damn sick concept. Zero tolerations from my side.

      I think you should be proud that you work so efficiently that you only needed 7 hours. Maybe you could spent the extra hour on some quality, or teach other people how you did your work so efficient.

      There are so many better ways to spent your time.

      ME

    11. Re:Not My Job by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Well without seeing exactly what pictures these techs saw, one can't say for sure, but I think 99% of 'kiddie porn' accusations are nonsense.


      While I agree that making the possession of information a crime itself is rather Orwellian, I should point out that in the US, sex with someone under the age of 18 is considered rape, regardless of whether they consented or not. So pictures of children having sex are definitely evidence of a crime, even if you don't think the pictures themselves are a crime.


      And there is porn featuring sex with infants, toddlers, 8 years olds, etc. There's no "you can't prove they were really underage" defense for that stuff.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    12. Re:Not My Job by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      I should point out that in the US, sex with someone under the age of 18 is considered rape, regardless of whether they consented or not. So pictures of children having sex are definitely evidence of a crime, even if you don't think the pictures themselves are a crime.

      If you've been looking at the pictures long enough to conclude that they were taken in the United States, you've probably spent too long looking at the pictures...

    13. Re:Not My Job by Surak · · Score: 1

      Well without seeing exactly what pictures these techs saw, one can't say for sure, but I think 99% of 'kiddie porn' accusations are nonsense. They don't involve, say, someone kidnapping 5 year olds and photographing their rape and torture.

      Um, dude, I had a guy stay at my house who did, in fact, use my network to download photos of 5 year olds who kidnapped, raped, and tortured. The sick fsck. I *had* to turn him in to the police or risk being implicated myself, especially when you consider the existence of kiddie porn sting sites.

      And, it turned out, the guy was abusing his own stepchildren. This guy was previously my best friend, and his wife had accused him of such things, but everyone I knew, including myself, thought of his wife as being just a bit mentally unstable and prone to making things up. Unfortunately, physical evidence said otherwise, and it turns out that this sick fsck actually WAS abusing children.

      So I can't say I agree with you -- at all. What if these were pictures of YOUR children?

    14. Re:Not My Job by zenyu · · Score: 1

      someone not washing their hands after leaving the bathroom

      yep, you're coworkers not washing their hands could kill you. Them looking at pictures is in a completely different category all together.

    15. Re:Not My Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      !!!NUKE ALL ARABS GO AMERICA!!!

      Do us all a favor and either... try suicide please.

    16. Re:Not My Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because you condoned his felony actions and helped cover it up.
      Okay, this is something that pisses me off. "Ignore" does not mean "condone". This is another example of the sort of black-and-white, with-me-or-against-me logic that screws things up in the world.
    17. Re:Not My Job by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      I would ask why you are looking at the pictures in the first place. When you are a tech working on a computer, you should not be rifiling through people's files. It is no different than a repairman at your house should not rifle through your stuff.

      At work I have full domain admin permissions. My password is good to get me into any level of any system in the domain. What's more, I don't even need to be at a system to gain access to all its files, my password over the network is good enough. Well, many people keep many person things on their computer, finincial information, personal e-mails, passwords to other systems, etc. I have the technical capibility to get any of this any time I want, and not get detected. However, I am trusted not to. It would not be right for me to rifle through people stuff, even if I claimed to just be doing it to find illegal things.

      If I am understanding the story here correctly, the tech was allegedly backing up data and just "happened" to click into the folders with the pictures. Ok, why the hell was he clicking around in a "My Music" fodler? If you are backing shit up, back it up, don't go snooping around. So, he found the illegal pictures and did the right thing: reported them. Then they fired him. Well I'd say he deserved it, not for reporting the pictures, but for finding them. He had no bussiness poking around in personal files, not the kind of guy I want working for me.

    18. Re:Not My Job by ScooterBill · · Score: 1

      There is a certain amount of fudging that goes on in life. You brag about driving a two hour drive(at the speed limit) in 1 1/2 hours. You make a copy of a CD for a friend. You let someone "borrow" a software program. If we followed the law exactly, and reported anything that seems to break the law, then it would suck to live here. These IT guys had one responsibility when they encountered the porn. It was serious enough to warrant telling their supervisor and serious enough to go to the cops if they thought it was being ignored. The company better have a pretty damn good reason for firing them as a jury will have little sympathy for the company.

    19. Re:Not My Job by hendridm · · Score: 1

      > Ignore the kiddie porn? Ignore clear evidence of a felony?

      So I should put my job on the line to save the world? What if I had kids to feed? Should they suffer to save the innocense of (already) molested kids?

      Why is it different if you recognize one of the kids? Because then you either a) have a stake in it, or b) your feelings are involved. Sounds selfish? It is, but if given the choice between saving the world and living on the street (albeit a better place, thanks to me) or waiting for another, safer battle, I choose the latter.

      I also can't help but feel there are alternative ways to benefit society. Give money to charity, volunteer at a rape victim center, be a Big Brother or Big Sister, whatever.

      Obviously, this is all theoretical. It seems to me the ideal solution is to report it anonymously.

    20. Re:Not My Job by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I'd never take my computer to be repaired by anyone else because of snooping. I've seen many a tech browse around, steal software, look at the users porn, look at private data.. etc. Unless there is a reason to be looking at this stuff you should keep your eyes to yourself.

      On the other hand if it's a public computer - such as in a computer lab - then I see no problem with policing the filesystem for files that could get your company in trouble or simply clog things up. That is your job. I routinely have such computers run a 'sweep' program that locates any new files and sends me a copy and a notice to where the file came from.. that way I can have them removed. The worst offender I've seen is IM's. Files users trade tend to sit on the hdd without the users knowing so you get a lot of files popping up they'd probably not want to share with everyone else (nudes of themselves) so it can be beneficial to have such things deleted routinely.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    21. Re:Not My Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should point out that in the US, sex with someone under the age of 18 is considered rape, regardless of whether they consented or not.

      Not in most states. 16 is the age of consent in many states.

    22. Re:Not My Job by ilctoh · · Score: 1
      And what next, after you tell on the guy with kiddie porn? Bob has too many MP3s, Larry didn't wash his hands after using the bathroom, and Alice took an extra ten minutes on her lunch break. Nobody wants to work with a person like that. Just do your job, ignore the kiddie porn, and get on with your life. I would hate to be the director of IT, and have some techie ruin my week by coming up to me and telling me that some employee has kiddie porn on his computer.

      Err, I don't think your scenario is realistic. Most techies probably won't report every instance of RealPlayer, Popup Blocker, or those IE extension Yahoo and Google beg you to install. Those, while they may violate the company policy, are not illegal, and most people can tell whats worth bothering the boss with. And most people would agree that illegal material on company property might be a problem. For example, if someone kept a supply a joints in his desk, and smoked one or two during his lunch hour in the bathroom, and your noticed, would you mention something?

      --
      How many slashes would a slashdot dot, if a slashdot could dot slashes?
    23. Re:Not My Job by anonymous+loser · · Score: 1
      So I should put my job on the line to save the world? What if I had kids to feed? Should they suffer to save the innocense of (already) molested kids?

      This is poor reasoning. By actively ignoring this kind of activity, you are putting YOUR OWN CHILDREN at risk. What if instead of giving authorities the opportunity to trace the origins of the pornography on the machine, you DON'T report it, and the same people who made the child pornography on the guy's computer later molest YOUR kids for profit?

      I don't understand your sentiment here, anyway. Sure whistle-blowers might get the shaft sometimes, but I'd like to believe that doing the right thing gets rewarded more often than it gets punished. If I'm ever working at a company and get the impression I could lose my job by doing the right thing, I don't want to continue working for that company anyway. I'd rather risk being fired than teach my children to live in constant fear.

    24. Re:Not My Job by estes_grover · · Score: 1

      Ignore the kiddie porn? Ignore clear evidence of a felony?....Oh, I see. You're an idiot.



      ummm, actually I think he is what some would call a "Johnson": a Johnson honors his obligtations; his word is good and he is a good man to do business with. A Johnson minds his own business. He is not a snoopy, self-righteous, trouble making person.

    25. Re:Not My Job by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is not quite true, at least for Colorado. (All of the following comment relates to the law in Colorado)
      from

      http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobas e/ 2650a/27c36/281dd?f=templates&fn=document-frame.ht m
      18-3-402. Sexual assault.

      (d) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or

      (e) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or

      from the US criminal code, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html
      T ITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > Sec. 2256.
      (8)

      ''child pornography'' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -

      (A)

      the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

      (B)

      such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

      (C)

      such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

      (D)

      such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

      **End of law quoting

      Note that it would be COMPLETELY legal for 2 14 year olds to have sex. However, I do think that if another 14 year old was to photograph this, then that would be child porn, even though the act itself is completely legal. This is incredible to me, that an act can be legal, and a recording of that act, with the conscent of all to be featured in that recording is illegal!

      Also, these laws do not take into acount the age of the person who posses the child pornography. What if a person who is 17 has pictures of other 17 year olds having sex with other 17 year olds? It would be legal for all of those people to have sex, but it is a FELONY for some of the latter to make a picture, and give it to the first person? That is really incredible.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    26. Re:Not My Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're untrustworthy for following the law? How does that work?

      I also find it interesting that you're labelling the accused as "basically innocent" when you have absolutely no idea of the content of the porn that was found on his computer... How do you know it wasn't pictures of 10 year olds? Or, for that matter, how do you know that he wasn't molesting his own kids, or other kids where he lives? You don't know, but you'd rather he not be inconvienenced than the possibility of saving some poor kid from having their life permanently fucked up.

    27. Re:Not My Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at a major Pac-10 university. One day, I got a peculiar voice mail. It was very personal (but not for me), from the head football coach... obviously not to me. I put a couple of things together in my head, such as my phone number was 1 digit off from the someone I'm pretty sure it was supposed to go to, who was involved with a bunch of University stuff. What did I do? Did I reply back, saying to the caller, "this went to the wrong person"? No, because it would be identified as having come from me. And then I'm in on the secret. Do I forward it to the other person? No. It could have been the wrong person. So I deleted it. I didn't let anyone else in on it. It just died from my mailbox.

      And then I got another one... Again, deleted it.

      Sometimes the bad stuff is in your face through no cause of your own. What do you do?

    28. Re:Not My Job by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Usually what's involved is someone that didn't produce the pictures, has no way to know their provenence and in no way contributed to their making, and the pictures in question are perhaps shots of 16 year old girls on nude beaches and the like. 16 years is the age of consent in a lot of countries you know. In the US it was formerly 12, in fact if memory serves 11 in one state. And there's no way to tell what age a model was in most cases anyway - is that a 16 year old, or an 18? Without knowing the provenence of the pictures and having records to prove the ages of those involved, it's simple conjecture, hiding behind outrage to avoid proving anything.

      It's very difficult to prove kiddie-porn when the models involved have boobs and hair and orgasms and stuff. The reason is obvious, puberty is the process of becoming an adult, at least sexually. Not to mention all the porn out there that says "Teens do anything for you!" and crap. That usually refers to girls 18 and 19, but I've seen a lot of High School cheerleaders who WERE 18 during the photo shoot, or may have even been younger but were 18 when they signed the paper to distribute th tstuff, or whatever.

      THe only way to prove kiddie porn, in my opinion, in a picture by itself, requires several elements. 1) something with which to scale the model, such as a couch or something. I've seen 18-year-olds who could shave their pussies and stand in an empty room and pass for naked 8-year-olds. 2) Blatant sexual activity. In fact, I'm nervous about taking pictures of my own kids when they're naked, even if they're doing one of those really cute and memorable things, because in this society somebody might take it as kiddie porn. 3) Obvious sexual immaturaty (sp?). Many women go through their whole lives without growing large breasts, and for portions of their adult life could pass as pre-menses. Many other women develop early and can pass as 20+ years old when they're in fact "kiddie porn" material. How can sexual immaturity be obvious? Well, it's a topic beyond the scope of this post.

      THe problem is totally exacerbated by the ideas involved in statutory rape. The assumption is that an older man uses his superior experience, charm, and knowledge to seduce a younger girl who would, if she knew better, say "no". But the girls themselves may very well be well-developed women, with boobs and pubes and totally orgasmic. Yet there are people who think it's sick and twisted to look at those girls, even though the girls' bodies are doing exactly what they naturally do at that point and trying to look as sexy as possible to attract a mate. SO it's considered sick and twisted to respond in a natural fashion to a girl who's body is trying to get you to respond in a natural fashion. (Of course I'm talking about girls in the age ranges of 12-17, but mostly in the range of 15-17. But I have seen 12-14-year-olds who could pass for at least 18, and no, I didn't see them naked) Statutory rape is one of those laws that has a good intent, but is incapable of carrying out justice.

      Anyway, I got sidetracked. The article also says that the employees only saw thumbnails of the so-called kiddie porn. I've seen thumbnails of pictures that looked benign but turned out to be porn, and I've seen thumbnails that looked pornographic that turned out not to be. Windows thumbnails are pretty small, so how the fuck did the employees successfully identify, from a thumbnail in an innocent directory crawl, that the pictures were porn and the genre? I have to say, it's totally reasonable when you've backed up Data to probe his anus to make sure all his shit's in place. Er, totally reasonable when you've backup up some data to go spot-checking in various directories to see that the data survived the transfer and that you're safe to smash the hard drive.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    29. Re:Not My Job by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      exactly.

      almost all the comments up to this have been just about 'finding kiddie porn and reporting it', while the real issue is in fact 'what to do when i have broken rules and because of that know too much'.

      the whole discussion would have been much more fertile without mentioning 'kiddie porn' in the article, maybe then people would have realised that maybe you don't have the moral responsibility to check what files your co-worker keeps on his computer, and be a 'whistle-blower'.

      you are required to blow the whistle if you get into such know anyways. but you have to understand that after that it would be common knoweledge that you like to spy on your comrades when you shouldn't, would you trust a plumber that you know will check through your tax information while he is doing some work at your house? certainly not. it's frightening how people don't think that pc's are 'private area' even though they often contain terrible amounts of information about the owner.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    30. Re:Not My Job by insomaniac · · Score: 1

      For example, if someone kept a supply a joints in his desk, and smoked one or two during his lunch hour in the bathroom, and your noticed, would you mention something?

      Ok I'm a dutch tech worker who does smoke a joint before/during work every so often and I think there is nothing wrong with this cause I can do my work allmost as well as when I'm sober, it takes the edge of those uber stressfull days. But on the other side there are people who can't work on weed but this depends on the person. So I wouldn't report him to anyone but if his performance would suffer I would talk to him about it...
      And you can't compare weed smoking to child porn cause smoking weed is a totally victimless crime. (Well here it isn't even a crime...)

      --
      The way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher value them who think alike than those who think differently
    31. Re:Not My Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically your anecdotal experience doesn't match the parent posters generalization...

      His point is that he doesn't know about this case because he hasn't seen those pictures. Neither have I, and neither have you.

      Because of different personal experiences you would understandably make different assumptions about details that you don't know.

      I for one would prefer for cases like this to always include some details - just so I could in my mind know how clear-cut the case is. But in the absence of specifics, unless an article mentions child abuse in addition to posession of child porn, I don't assume the worst.

    32. Re:Not My Job by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      I also find it interesting that you're labelling the accused as "basically innocent"

      Yeah, that's terrible how the accused have a basic presumption of innocence in our society.

      Where are you from, anyway? Saudi Arabia? Edwardian England? The presumption of innocence is a freaking pillar of our society, you know?

    33. Re:Not My Job by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Um, if you're responsible for making computers work properly at an office, you are not a drone. You have been hired to perform tasks that require critical thinking. Simply 'ignoring' things is not part of that equation, whatever those things are.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    34. Re:Not My Job by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      On second thought, I can see now why your attitude is so soft towards child pornographers: you must be one yourself.

      No? Then what's with this "candyman" reference? I'm no expert in the field, or anything, but wouldn't a man that gives children candy to exploit them potentially be a pornographer? Might this not be a 'callsign' for a series of child porn, etc? I think so.

      Thanks for clearing things up for me, pervert. I hope someone hits you with a bus.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    35. Re:Not My Job by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      I am not a robot, and I don't blindly (obediently) follow laws, especially the ones I don't agree with. For example, I speed, and I jaywalk, and so on. Nor do I turn in others who commit similar crimes. In particular, the way the law is structured regarding child pornography is, in my opinion, highly unConstitutional and uncivilized. For example, the government can run an ad in Hustler for some kiddie porn, and then when you respond, they sell you kiddie porn, then they bust you for possesion of kiddie porn. That's *wrong* regardless of whether or not it's *legal*. In my opinion, of course. Apparently that's a very clear moral line that only I can see.

      So perhaps kiddie porn is a touchy issue with me, but I would probably only make mention of anything I found on a user's hard drive if it were, say, explicit plans to blow up the WTC. Porn, even kiddie porn, is never going to put me into "The Sky Is Falling!" mode.

    36. Re:Not My Job by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      That's great.

      By the way, the FBI just added something new to their file on you. Speeding, jaywalking, and aiding and abetting known child pornographers.

      That knock at the door ain't the pizza man. ;)

  33. The sick irony is by vastabo · · Score: 3, Funny
    look at the bottom of the page at that quote thingy:
    A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.

    Or maybe it's not that funny.

  34. Must be running out of headlines.... by netwalkr · · Score: 1

    I would say escalate it to your boss then, allow them to take care of the issue appropriately. What a bummer to get fired over somebody's obsession with kiddy PRON.

  35. fire code violations, license violations... by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    I was severely reprimanded on two different subjects- one was over our complete and total lack of fire supression equipment in our server room. The building-wide system's alarm in the room didn't even work- and you couldn't hear the others outside because of the air handler. Extremely dangerous on so many counts. How did I get in trouble? Fire Marshall pointed at the server room and said "What's in there?" while I was headed that way. "Server room." "I want to go in there." "Okay."(what was I supposed to say? "Sorry, don't have the key to the door I was walking towards", even if I felt like lying?) That got me screamed at real fast, because the fire marshall hit the ceiling when he saw a complete and utter lack of fire supression. No sprinklers(water, gas, fog/foam, whatever. Nothing there. Why? Landlord had ripped out the half-dead system.) Nothing ever came of the FM's threats- I'm sure the landlord paid him off.

    Second case was some hand-me-down backup software from our "main" office. It was, of course, licensed to specific Solaris system IDs, belonging to systems we couldn't have, for whatever reason. They wanted me to change the system IDs- defeating the whole licensing system(ie, against the license terms.) I refused, on two grounds- violated the licensing terms, and it was probably not possible/could damage the system's hardware, according to the stuff I had read on the sun manager's list.

    Why couldn't they simply call up and ask to have the keys re-issued for new systems, which was 100%, completely allowed for in the terms of the license? They were $20,000+ in the hole with the vendor, the only company who could reissue the license keys.

  36. Firing whistleblowers works.... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

    Just ask Enron, Worldcom, the FBI, all branches of the military, and many others. They all agree that if you relay a problem to your superiors, the matter will be handled in a timely, ethical matter.

  37. um... child pr0n != "goodies" michael by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you insensitive clod

  38. copyright lawyers and child pornography... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who knew? makes sense to me:) i wonder what's on hillary rosen's computer...(she is, after all, writing the copyright laws for the 51st state)

    1. Re:copyright lawyers and child pornography... by Original+AIDS+Monkey · · Score: 0

      Rosie O'Donnell bound, gagged, and being violated with a hot poker.

      --


      =======
      P.S. Bite! You've been bitten by the Original AIDS Monkey! You have AIDS now!
  39. blatantly off-topic post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't change, trolling changed. Just like reagan and the democratic party.

  40. Nothing at all by Eol1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work government network security for a living. Part of the ethics instilled in us (along with federal regulations governing the position) is the broad understanding that we are here to protect the security of the network. We are not the porn police or any other type of legal official.

    We are legally bound NOT TO report anything even if discovered on a routine call, not our job. We are not legally authorized to invade your privacy. That is why they have policy with warrants. It is also a position I stand behind and advidly enforce on my more moral or do gooder juniors. Your users should trust you to do your job and FIX the computer / issue, not narc them out. Your job is NOT to enforce your morality or ideas of what the law is upon them.

    If you want to be a narc join a legal body and put your computer skills to use helping them. If just want to narc on your coworker because they don't fit in your ideas of morality, I have no sympathy for you or anybody like you. Losing your job should be the least of your worries, you should be hung from a tree.

    Everybody breaks the law including you. Do you really want to live in a society where the guy behind you on the freeway calls the police on you for doing 57 in a 55.

    Mind your own business and do you job unless your job is to bust folk.

    --
    De Oppresso Liber
    1. Re:Nothing at all by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yeah speeding is the same as taking dirty pictures of kids and getting off to them. Im sure you don't even care that people who look at child porn often "get the urge" and go out and molest kids. I couldn't live with that on my conscience.

    2. Re:Nothing at all by Eol1 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't bother me in the slightest, its not my job to care about the worlds problems. This is NOT about child pornography anways, so don't even try to bring that up. This is about purposeful abusing your elavated permissions as a tech to violate your users privacy.

      We have policies here that expressively prohibit our techs from viewing personnal files on the computer they work on. In windows, this basically means they are NOT authorized for ANY reason to look in the documents and setting folders or the profiles. Nor our they allowed to view network shares containing personnal files. Unless you have a warrant (or a 15-6), we will (and have) fire any tech that violates this regardless of wrong doing.

      You only need access to operation system files as a tech. If you need to backup data, you don't need to view that information. Have a problem with the system, backup, format, install. Problems solved.

      These two did not get fired for blowing the whistle, they got fired for violating the privacy fo the professor. Think how many other personnal files (to non-guilty professors) those two have accessed, read. They are not law officials, they do not have this right.

      --
      De Oppresso Liber
    3. Re:Nothing at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It doesn't bother me in the slightest, its not my job to care about the worlds problems."

      Might be your problem if you ever have children of your own. But then again, you may not give a shit about your kids getting ass probed on camera. Most government employees are scumbags that wouldn't piss on their own mother if she was on fire.

    4. Re:Nothing at all by Paulo · · Score: 1

      We are legally bound NOT TO report anything even if discovered on a routine call, not our job.

      And how does the above conflict with the laws stating that, if you see child porn and don't report it, you're an accesory to the fact?

    5. Re:Nothing at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't you be on a podium thumping a bible somewhere?

    6. Re:Nothing at all by belroth · · Score: 1

      Amoral jerk.

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    7. Re:Nothing at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you born stupid or have you been taking classes? In any society that I am aware of, the laws of the land exceed a contract of employment - if you discover a crime being committed your duty is to the laws of the land not to your job description

    8. Re:Nothing at all by Eol1 · · Score: 1

      Yep...and the law of the land says a lot of shit. States I shouldn't speed and shouldn't talk about about the president (UCMJ is an issue where I work).

      Federal regulation (might as well be law) where I work PROHIBITS me from invading a users personnal privacy on their work computers.

      For me to even just find kiddie porns is ground is exceeding my legal authority and grounds for immediate termination and immediate investigation by CID.

      Kind of tough to explain how you just *found* kiddie porn in a personnal folder when federal regulation stops from looking.

      How do I not report it, easily, I just never see it. If I do see it, I treat the 'law of the land' like I treat speeding laws, I ignore that also.

      --
      De Oppresso Liber
    9. Re:Nothing at all by Eol1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      self-rightous cunt

      --
      De Oppresso Liber
    10. Re:Nothing at all by afidel · · Score: 1

      We are legally bound NOT TO report anything even if discovered on a routine call, not our job.

      No, you are contractually bound not to. Legally it depends on the state, but in most states not reporting a felony is itself a crime. Some states have specific statutes that provide for more severe criminal charges for computer professionals who fail to report kiddie porn. What you were told in orientation and the letter of the law are aparantly different things. This isn't morality, it is part of being a member of society, reporting felonious acts is a duty of every citizen.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Nothing at all by Eol1 · · Score: 1

      Prove I seen it. Considering I am regulatory bound NOT TO FIND it, my simple defense is I never seen it. I was following federal regulations and only sticking to the OS files.

      --
      De Oppresso Liber
    12. Re:Nothing at all by Eol1 · · Score: 1

      But as stated above, I am a federal employee. I am also working outside US territory where only federal law and regulation applies.

      As my other post comments, I am legally bound not to discover it or even look. I would even have to justify why I broke the law finding it if I stumbled across it.

      Only personnal legally authorized to violate my users privacy are federal investigators with a warrant or a 15-6. I am nor have either.

      --
      De Oppresso Liber
    13. Re:Nothing at all by uptownguy · · Score: 1

      Part of the ethics instilled in us (along with federal regulations governing the position) is the broad understanding that we are here to protect the security of the network. We are not the porn police or any other type of legal official.

      You (1) are a liar (2) are overmoderated and (3) have absolutely zero credibility as a poster on this subject -- look at what you have listed as your "homepage" -- sighs... the mods really aren't doing their jobs around here to have given you points.

      Sorry this sounds like a flame but I can't believe this guy slipped by...

      --


      I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
    14. Re:Nothing at all by Eol1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes .. by what I claim to be my homepage (the infamous goatse.cx) discredits what I wrote. goatse.cx is not my homepage, in the same way Eol1 is not my real name (surprise surprise)

      As for you flaming, thats your business. You don't have to believe me though, federal regs are open to the public ... ones that govern my position specifically are AR 25-1 and AR 380-19 (both DA) ... which build upon existing DoD and federal regs. Go read them for yourself and tell me I am wrong.

      --
      De Oppresso Liber
    15. Re:Nothing at all by ocbwilg · · Score: 2, Informative

      I work government network security for a living. Part of the ethics instilled in us (along with federal regulations governing the position) is the broad understanding that we are here to protect the security of the network. We are not the porn police or any other type of legal official.

      But what you have utterly failed to comprehend here is the third word in your post. Government. Since you are working as an employee of a government agency then you are considerably more restricted in what you can and cannot do. If a federal employee technician sneaks a peak at someone's personal files, sees kiddie porn, and reports it, then even a mediocre attorney could twist it into an illegal search and seizure because it was an agent of the government who did it. But in the private sector you're just Joe Citizen, and it would not only be legal to report it it would be mandated by law in some states to report it.

      There's a huge difference in workplace regulations between government and private sector jobs (and I have worked IT in both).

    16. Re:Nothing at all by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      As far as the article goes, it doesn't delve into details about how they discovered the child porn. If it was "bored techie syndrome," then yes they were going beyond their job mandate, which should only require them to perform actions pursuant to fixing the perceived problems with the computer.

      But regardless of how they found it, there would be absolutely no rationale for ignoring it. First, because they aren't federal officers, they're not obligated to follow rules regarding warrants. Second, warrants have never applied when the evidence is in plain view. Finally, in some areas it isn't legal to *not* report evidence of a felony, however much stammering and stuttering you have to do to explain how you got into the position of discovering it.

      If you really are a federal employee, and are sure that you're correct in the interpretation of your responsibilities, then do what you consider appropriate. But it may be prudent for you to run your interpretation of your job duties by your lawyer types.

      If, as your goatse link would suggest, you are a troll, then you really need to go back to spreading FUD about things that can only mess up Slashdot, not another person's actual life.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    17. Re:Nothing at all by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Yawn. First you said that you wouldn't report it because the law of the land prohibited you from doing so. Now you're claiming that you don't care what the law says, you'll ignore it.

      If a computer user isn't taking precautions, it's quite possible for a technicians to find evidence in the normal course of his duties. You cannot tell me that you are legally obligated to avoid reporting it, if you didn't go out of your way in finding it. Hell, if I was paying a lawyer to give me the advice you are, I'd ask him to go double-check his facts. Coming from some pseudonym who is obviously more interested in covering his own ass than in stopping a felony?

      If anyone here finds themselves in a situation like the article describes, I think they would be well advised to ignore everything you've said.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    18. Re:Nothing at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your company may have a specific policy dealing with privacy that errs on the side of the user, most companies retain the right to view any and all data on an employees assigned machine. This professor most likely had no expectation of privacy as in his employment contract there was probably a provision that specifically stated something to that effect, thus his privacy was not violated.

      As for your stand on issues of morality, I think it's you that needs to be hanging from a tree. There are obviously issues that are grey areas, child porn shouldn't be one of them, and anybody that so fucking stupid that they can't see that should do us all a favor and remove themselves from the gene pool.

    19. Re:Nothing at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And considering your grammar, there's little doubt they'll believe you, seeing as they'll think you incapable of actually operating a computer...

    20. Re:Nothing at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Moron, the reason YOU have to operate under these provisos is because of the sensitive nature of the files your users may have on their systems. This is designed for national security, not to act as a fucking cloak for child-molesters. In your circumstance, you may have no legal way of reporting such a finding, but to say that this is how ALL members of the IT industry should do their jobs is fucking retarded.

    21. Re:Nothing at all by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2

      Do you really want to live in a society where the guy behind you on the freeway calls the police on you for doing 57 in a 55.

      Eh? By the time our society gets that bad, it'll be illegal to drive and use a cell-phone. Just think, you'll be driving along doing 57, and two cop cars show up. One to arrest you for speeding, and the other to arrest the narc for using his cell-phone while driving...

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    22. Re:Nothing at all by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That brings up a question -- if a tech finds and reports (as required by law in some states) illegal materials, what happens to the concept of requiring a search warrant to acquire evidence??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    23. Re:Nothing at all by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      It doesn't bother me in the slightest, its not my job to care about the worlds problems.

      Then you'll excuse me when I look the other way as you're getting mugged.

      Much of the shit in this world is caused by people not giving a fuck about anyone but themselves. That goes for many governments too.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    24. Re:Nothing at all by danila · · Score: 1

      It was extremely nice to see a sane person here.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    25. Re:Nothing at all by Hatta · · Score: 1
      "Im sure you don't even care that people who look at child porn often "get the urge" and go out and molest kids."


      That's complete and utter bullshit which has no basis in reality. I'll refer you to two previous comments, which are far more eloquent than I, and then add my own. By Chasing Amy and
      stinky wizzleteats

      There is simply no evidence for your assertion. I challenge you to find any. This is the same arguement that conservatives against adult pornography, that it will incite people to go out and commit violence against women. Rather legalization of pornography has been associated with a decrease in rape. It seems quite reasonable to me to expect pornography to help relieve sexual tension and decrease violence against women. People aren't robots who repeat everything they see on a video on the internet. Yes, they have urges. Some have sick and deviant urges, but they blow their load and get on with life. The handful of people who are sick enough to mess with children will do it with or without "incitement" and need no encouragement by an audience. This is FUD, plain and simple.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:Nothing at all by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      Have a problem with the system, backup, format, install.

      And in the process of finding all the files to backup, windows thumbnailed the kiddy porn. I really don't see how thats going above and beyond anything.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    27. Re:Nothing at all by gdave44 · · Score: 1

      If you believe what you said, you need to revisit Level II SA training. Government regs require illegal material be reported. The hitch is we may not investigate. That is left to an Agent of Law Enforcement. We must have a reason relative to our job to find it. Noticing inappropriate filenames in the Document list for example. We may NOT look at the file to confirm, but must report what we've found. Many hours of training go into what SA's can and cannot do in these cases in Government work.

    28. Re:Nothing at all by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Really? so if you stumbled onto the where about of Bin Laden, you would say anything? how about information that told you where a kidnapped child is?
      the reason you have those "eithics" "instilled"(did that hurt?) in you is to prevent law suits, not for some moral or ethical high ground.

      If you do not act on your morals, then you do not have morals, just some flimsy illusion you hold on to so you can sleep at night.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  41. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Easy, I shopped the bastards.



    I used to work on repairing printing machinery and one place I went to was publishing a child porn mag called 'Young and Free'. The machinery was repaired without comment and as I drove away I phoned the police on the cellphone.



    Each of the guys working there got a prison sentence, and I hope they had a tough time.



    Peter Jones


    Ex AGFA engineer

  42. Aren't there laws protecting whistleblowers? by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

    Although I would have to admit that going above the boss' head is a dumb move in this particular case, quite honestly if you know the company is doing something wrong - for instance if this guy didn't get fired for the child porn on his computer, or if the company as a whole is doing something illegal, like laundering money - if you don't blow the whistle, you are an accomplice under the law.

    I seem to recall that people have been protected for reporting corporate crime before, and as such the company in question here may be in trouble for firing their sysadmin.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    1. Re:Aren't there laws protecting whistleblowers? by shylock0 · · Score: 1
      Yes, but in this case the sysadmin is showing wrongdoing on behalf of an employee, not the company, which is different.

      A good analogy is adultery, which is illegal in some states. If you know your boss is having an affair with the secretary, it is definately within his rights to fire you if you start spreading it around...

      --
      Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
    2. Re:Aren't there laws protecting whistleblowers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but what if he's having an affair with a minor?

      Or, what if he's having an affair with a vendor hoping to win a major bid from the company, and he's a part of the decision loop for the bids?

  43. In South Carolina by icewalker · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe the SC Legislature recently passed a law that requires an IT person to turn in another who may have Child Pornography on their computer. Not doing so would be illegal. For the company to fire the person afterwards would then open the company up to litigation. Basically, I'm between a rock and a rock! Time for a Career Change??

    --
    The truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination.
    1. Re:In South Carolina by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

      Yeah, or move out of dixie. Whatever ;)

  44. what should you do about it? by Tom · · Score: 1

    Very obviously, the first thing you should do is read the company security policy and find out whether your find conflicts with it. If it does, shut up or give an anonymous hint to the police.

    I've written a security policy for a company. Data privacy and data security do sometimes conflict, and if the company doesn't have that problem sorted out in a written document, urge it to do so.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  45. Lighten up, it was a joke. by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

    Notice the funny moderation?

    It's not the porn that's bad. It's what you do with it!

  46. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh, god. another self-righteous asshole with a gf

  47. I wonder how often . . . by Jack+William+Bell · · Score: 1

    . . . something like that is found and the first thing the person with the porn knows about it is an anonymous note asking how much they are willing to pay *not* to be turned in?

    --
    - -
    Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
  48. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thoroughly enjoy pr0n, and found the post above to be very funny. Also, I have a date tonight. With your mom. I'll bet we do the nasty. Chicks dig me.

  49. Just Delete It? by Click+0+Nett · · Score: 1

    You're the sysadmin, why not just delete it? After all, the employee can't complain about it without divulging the fact that he had illegal pictures on his computer.

    --

    Like eagles on pogo-sticks! -- Glottis

    1. Re:Just Delete It? by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

      Becuase if the sysadmin "deleted" the questionable content with something other than the [Delete] key, such as the dd utility, the "victim" could easily claim you deleted their family photos. And who could really tell otherwise, as there being 0's written to that sector of the hard drive.

    2. Re:Just Delete It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I used the same logic when I was 13...I stole my Dad's Playboys and he couldn't ask me for them without adimting he had them and explaining why...

  50. If you discover illegal goodies on a machine...... by PS-SCUD · · Score: 3, Informative

    What should you do about it? What until the owner shows up for it, then beat the shit out of him.

    --


    "Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
  51. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your immaturity and lack of respect for others are two good reasons why you'll probably be sitting at home by yourself trolling Slashdot tonight instead of out on a date with a special someone.

    I pity you. I honestly do.

  52. What should you do? by dogfart · · Score: 1
    Some commenters have noted that it is better to resolve the issue in-house, that system administrators shouldn't go right to law enforcement. Others note that the boss may be part of the problem.

    My suggestion is go to the company Human Resources and/or in-house legal and let them deal with it. Be sure to document that you have done so.

    For a situation as politically charged as this, the whistle blowers should go straight to their own attorney for advice. Hate to say it, but many companies place their reputations above the law. Some managers may have the internal clout to make your life miserable for even raising the issue internally.

    Some /. posters have made the point that firearms are defensive weapons, and that the more innocent people with firearms, the harder it is for bad people to use firearms for bad purposes. I would make the same argument about lawyers

    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  53. In the long run by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You should call the police. Tells the boss that you're going to call the police, don't let him (or her) talk you out of it. In the long run you might lose your job, but you'll know that you did the right thing. You very easily end up thinking about whether or not you did the right thing or knowing that the person who commited the crime didn't get the appropriate punishment.

    A clean conscience is more important than the best paying job in the world.

    1. Re:In the long run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A clean conscience is more important than the best paying job in the world.

      Unless your kids are starving because you got fired. Can't pay the mortgage with a "clean conscience".

    2. Re:In the long run by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 1

      I know everyone would be better of without me commenting on your reply, but I'm going to anyway.

      Two words: Welfare State

    3. Re:In the long run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was an illegal alien once in a European country(that's why I am posting anonymously) and I reported a child abuser to the authorities. I had written evidence, in the form of an email from his wife telling me in great detail what he was doing to his stepdaughter.

      What did I do? Well of course, print the email, call the cops, wait till they arrived to my house (with a computer expert, I might add) and showed them all the evidence I had.

      I got deported because the guy's wife filed an official complain against me. Did I regret it? Not for a second.

      I do not want to get into details, but within 3 months, I was back in the country LEGALLY. The cops who came to my appartment that day played a good role in that. The moral of the story? Do the right thing, probably it will be for the better.

  54. RTFA - Proper channels were followed by ispinstr · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    When Gross saw the thumbnail pictures, he consulted with Perry, who reported the incident to their supervisor, Margaret Perley, another Collegis employee on site at the school, according to the complaint. In a meeting on or about June 13, the suit continues, Perley told Perry and Gross that she had contacted New York City's district attorney's office about the incident.

    Looks like the proper chain of command to me. Also, looks to me like Collegis is trying to make an example out of the whistle-blowers so clients will not be afraid to continue dealing with them out of fear that they will be ratted out if something objectionable, or illegal, is found.
  55. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHAT?!? "I'm quitting church, I spend way too much time in the bathroom with a copy of Hustler to be bothered by Jesus every sunday."

    WHAT?!?

  56. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some people have this attitude towards porn, but usually, it's because they haven't seen the right kind yet.

    Just wait until you get married and you're down to one night every week. You'll go hunt down some dvds you and the wife can 'enjoy together'. Believe it or not, the right kind of porn makes women very excited.

  57. I was fired for this type of thing exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    routine maintenence of a customers pc... found tons of similar pornography. I emailed the FBI to ask about what I should do (after the boss decided to do nothing because of company policy which I told him I didn't agree with). Although I never got a reply from the feds I was let go do to "budget issues"...

    what should I do here?

    1. Re:I was fired for this type of thing exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop going through your customers' files?

  58. They did the wrong thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You're assuming that the children were hurt, which may or may not be true. You're then assuming that the professor looking at these pictures was also 'propogating' them, without any evidence of that. And then you're assuming that this propogation somehow encourages harming other children, another very dubious assumption.

    I'd be the first to step up and flip the switch on someone that abused a child. But some professor looking at image files which you don't like is an entirely different issue. Butt out.


    If one of my techs did what these two did I would find a way to fire them, and if they came to me looking for work you can damn well bet I wouldn't give them a job. If I had a dime for every time I've seen a naughty pic on a professors computer I'd be a damn rich man... and a tech that doesn't know enough just to ignore them and do their job isn't someone that anyone would want working on their computer. I wouldn't trust these morons to make me a hamburger, let alone work on my clients computers, ever. I hope they never get a job again.

    1. Re:They did the wrong thing. by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're assuming that the children were hurt, which may or may not be true.
      I'd rather assume that, and be wrong; then to assume that children are not hurt, and be wrong.

      I'm certain the children would prefer I feel that way too.

    2. Re:They did the wrong thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather not: exposing 300 million Americans to the possibility of denunciations and arbitrary law enforcement needs more justification than "children might be hurt".

    3. Re:They did the wrong thing. by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It is more than 'simply' "children might be hurt" (of course it isn't "might", but rather it is "children are being hurt"). Lives are at stake. Do you think that 9/11 was a fluke and that the terrorists (who happen to be your neighbors, thanks to our far too lax immigration policies) aren't biding their time for another round? If so, I hope you're right, but I really doubt that you are. And I'd rather not take chances with my families' lives, or our childrens' safety.

  59. Right to face accusers, "anonymous" email accounts by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    That way, the perpetrator gets punished, I am left out of the deliberations, and everyone's happy.

    Except the constitution, which says people have a right to face their accusers.

    Just email the URL or IP address to the proper authorities (your boss, the police, etc.) from one of your anonymous email accounts and you're all set (use a proxy too).

    Um, no. Most proxies keep logs. Many even pass in the HTTP headers what client they're proxying for. Oh, and Hotmail, Yahoo, etc all put your client's IP in the headers of any email you send. Worst case, it would take anyone with half a clue and subpoena(sp?) power about a day to find out where the email really came from, if that.

  60. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by ramzak2k · · Score: 1

    Whats wrong with normal porn ? Ethically - no one is getting hurt.

    Helps relieve sexual frustration. Its good! :)

    (Note: I am not talking about child porn here - thats inhuman)

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
  61. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please keep your petty flame wars off of slashdot, for the sake of those who seek legitimate information.

    Also, look at the moderation of the "boobs" comment. It was intended to be humourous.

    I do not condone or support seinman's perverse love of porn in any way shape or form. I do however understand that pornography can be interpreted as the celebration of the natural beauty of the female body

    Thank you

  62. Proper channels, eh? by repetty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I completely understand what you are saying about the "proper channels".

    I worked at particularly large American semiconductor manufacturer for many years.

    They have their own fire response team.

    If there's a fire on the site, screw the city fire department -- you're supposed to call security.

    The company says that the city fire department is unfamiliar with the chemicals and equipment that they're liable to encounter. On the other hand, they have been chastised by the city police department and fire department on more than one occassion because they unnecessarily risked human safety by trying to handle their problems themselves, allowing them to spiraled out of control.

    In the end, the company was frequently unable to handle these situations.

    Now, here is why I'm very, very skeptical of your suggestion...

    Corporations are legal entities in the eyes of the law, sure, but they have no morals. They didn't "grow up"... they are chartered by suits, snapping into life in one afternoon. Unlike real people, their first and only priority in life is financial.

    I don't know you. Our parents didn't know each other. I grew up and live in Texas and I have no idea where you live. Still, I'll bet that you and I would probably agree on the "right thing to do" in 99% of the moral delimmas that we encounter, even though everything in the equation is subjective.

    That's amazing to me, but it's a testiment to how societies function to keep order.

    And how about corporations? Who "raised" them and what are their motives?

    The real purpose of a company's "proper channels" is to mitigate their legal liabilities, that's all.

    Go find a corporate lawyer and ask. They'll set you straight on this.

    An employee discovering illegal porn on a computer or illegal anything is in a tough position: report it to you employer and the problem will magically go away or report it to the proper authorities and get fired because you violated some legal agreement you signed with them (under duress) the year before.

    Employees caught in this situation are not fools; they're just unfortunate bastards.

    --Richard

    1. Re:Proper channels, eh? by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a federal law that prohibits firing someone for reporting illegal activity?

    2. Re:Proper channels, eh? by Spudley · · Score: 1

      Don't know about any Federal law, but where I come from (UK), this would definitely fall under the Unfair Dismissal laws.

      Unfair Dismissals can be ruled even where someone leaves voluntarily, if they can prove that there was discrimination/abuse/intimidation that forced them to leave.

      --
      (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    3. Re:Proper channels, eh? by haruchai · · Score: 1
      The problem is proving unfair dismissal. Companies have many ways of covering their tracks and the burden of proof is on the unfortunate employee.
      My former employer, in the course of going bankrupt,
      lied to me and 30 other people and we ended up out of work and owed months of back wages. In the end, they were able to hide behind the bankruptcy laws and we got screwed.
      Laws are useless if they can be easily circumvented.
      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:Proper channels, eh? by dogfart · · Score: 1

      Only if you are a Federal employee. Most states have so-called At Will Employment. You can fire someone for ANY reason, provided that reason is not itself a violation of law (e.g., racial or gender discrimination, etc.). This may explain the strange counter by the two fired employees

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    5. Re:Proper channels, eh? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      An employee discovering illegal porn on a computer or illegal anything is in a tough position: report it to you employer and the problem will magically go away or report it to the proper authorities and get fired because you violated some legal agreement you signed with them (under duress) the year before.

      I've been in a similar situation. As a texas state inspector, I worked with a guy that gave out an inspection sticker to a girl with boobs in exchange for a free looky and a 12-pack. (He was also an idiot) Then he makes this big commotion about how he was getting a 12-pack and that car's a piece of shit, or something like that. So I went and told my boss that I had to do something about it. The guy made a huge fuss about it, and if the car was caught, the paper trail was clear, and it would be known that I was working. In any serious investigation, I'd be in some tough shit myself. Besides that, there was also plenty of reason to believe that the girl's car really wasn't safe to drive. Heh. So I told my boss "I want to call the cops on this guy, what do you want to do?" MY boss says "We need him right now, and we can't hire somebody else. Please don't make an issue out of it." After some long, hard thinking, I called my inspection supervisor and told him the whole thing. He cut me off, asking if I had first talked to the store manager. I told him how the conversation had gone, but he cut me off again. He then called the store and talked to the guy. Within a couple of hours the decision was made for me to give a statement. ON that statement, the investigation proceeded. But, as I understand, the statement itself was never used. Anyway, my supervisor wanted to make sure the company had an opportunity to do the right thing, even if they ahd already started on the wrong track. THEN he wanted to see if they would do it, and if so, great. If not, he would revoke their license to do state inspections.

      The point of telling the story is that the law would prefer to give companies the opportunity to do the right thing, or at least to allow their employees to do the right thing. Now, I don't really have any idea what would've happened with me and the company after that, but I was starting to smell some bad wind coming my way, and I took off before the company could fuck with me. Thus, I saved face for all of us. :)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  63. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Your unusual lack of a sense of humor is one good reason why you'll be doing the same as the guy you responded to. Women generally appreciate a sense of humor more than they do an exagerated sense of self-superiority in moral rectitude.

    I pity you. I honestly do.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  64. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 1

    "I'm quitting church, I spend way too much time in the bathroom with a copy of Hustler to be bothered by Jesus every sunday."

    When Jesus is relegated to Sundays only; it doesn't take too much to reach the conclusion you've just stated.

  65. This is what we've been taught since day 1. by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Everybody knows that as soon as you place yourself at the scene of a crime, you become a suspect. My friends and I learned this when we called the police after seeing some kids set fire to a pallet of cardboard boxes behind a Wal-Mart. Guess who got grilled the hardest? Yup.

    You see something wrong? I'll tell you what you do. Walk away. It's either that, or get yourself involved and substantially raise the chances that something negative will happen to you.

    1. Re:This is what we've been taught since day 1. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Funny

      >set fire to a pallet of cardboard boxes behind a Wal-Mart. Guess who got grilled the hardest?

      The pallet of cardboard boxes?

  66. Re:Chain of command bullshit by GrassyKnowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In this case, the chain of command is trumped by the law. The police is the first line in the chain of command because a crime was commited. Any idiot who is advocating the chain of command in this case is advocating a coverup. Alot of time, corporations use the chain of command as a technique to cover the asses of the people higher up. If an employee sees a crime or fraud, call the cops or FBI. If more people did that in Enron and Worldcom, it would have saved alot of people their pension money. The chain of command is not law. The law enacted by legislature and congress is the law and is supreme to any coverup mechanisms that corporations are advocating.

  67. Maybe this was really unrelated to whistlleblowing by jorlando · · Score: 1

    the article says:
    "For two hours, Perry tried to fix it, uninstalling and reinstalling antivirus software, but the system continued to malfunction. The next day, Perry gave the PC to Gross to back up, fearing it might crash and lose valuable data."

    Any technician that "fix things" repeatedly installing and uninstalling the same software doesn't deserve the job... but that's my opinion...

    And to report the problem to police is wrong, there is an hierarchy in the company, if they thought that the company wasn't acting accordingly to the case, the should anonymously fill a complain with authorities...

  68. Absolutely WOULD report it by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you discover that an employee has, say, anime on his machine, it is certainly not your business to go and report him.

    If the company policy is that PCs are not for personal use and may not contain illegally-copied materials, I'm gonna tell them to clean up their act. If I find it a second time, you're goddam sure as hell I'm going to report it. Same with giant MP3 collections, P2P clients...none of it is appropriate in a work environment. You remind them they're violating policy, and if they keep it up, you let the appropriate folks know the facts. Seriously, what planet are you on?

    I see this all the time with users- they think that because they USE the PC, it is THEIR PC, and they have the right to do whatever the hell they want to with it...

  69. Zzzzzap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zap!
    Zap!
    Zap!
    Zap!
    Zap!
    Zap!

  70. Only partly agree by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Informative

    The idea of going to the boss first is a good idea. This is the same thing with any other event that may require the involvement of law enforcement (not including emergency services). You do this, get in touch with HR, PR, etc. so that when you go to law enforcement, the company has a coordinated response. This limits the damage to the company when the story gets out.

    Creating a record of your interactions is helpful because if they fire you depending on the state, you may be able to sue, or at least complain to HR regarding your treatment. Being able to document your interactions is helpful.

    Next you give your company the opertunity to go to law enforcement. Ask your boss how long he or she needs for this process. Again document, etc. and them if necessary (and only after good-faith avenues are exhausted) do you go to law enforcement. I would give warning to the management at this point that if they do not deal with the legal implications, that all your interactions on the matter will be handed over to law enfocement too for your protection (so they don't accuse you as an accomplice).

    At this point they have trouble firing until after the police are involved, but if they push back too far, then that might become part of the investigation.

    My own opinion is that you should look out for the interest of the company as well as trying to see that justice is done. Of course if they refuse to take up the oppertunity, then you probably don't want to work for them. And when your story appears in the news, maybe they will think twice next time....

    Act in good faith and the rest will work out...

    Then again, there are illegal things (like mp3's) and illegal things (like child porn) and they are not created equal.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Only partly agree by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Then again, there are illegal things (like mp3's) and illegal things (like child porn) and they are not created equal.

      Well, yes and no. I do expert witness testimony in criminal defense cases, many involving accusations of child pornography. The reality is that the feds view kiddie porn as an effortless conviction machine. Here's how it works:

      If you have ANY porn on your hard disk whatsoever, they print it all up poster size and show it to a jury. After about the 450th pic of a thirty year old in pig tails, cheerleading outfit, or with shaven nether regions, technicalities such as legal age disappear from the minds of most jurors. It's easy to say to yourself, oh, kiddie porn - fry the bastard. It is quite another to consider the ramifications of having every image ever stored on any part of your system's hard drive (including deleted files, file slack, ram buffer slack, swapfile contents, etc.) and shown to 12 church ladies. And that's if the case even goes to trial. Most defense firms have no idea how to challenge electronic evidence, and often simpily do a plea bargain. In the cases I've dealt with, I have yet to see one instance of actual, real child pornography. Furthermore, of the computers I've worked on which were ever used to view pornography of any kind on the Internet, I've found enough of what passes for "evidence" these days to put the owner in prison.

      Simple rules: if you like your money, don't download mp3s. If you like your freedom, don't surf porn. And don't participate in the 3 minutes hate. You may not know how finely the line is drawn beteween yourself and "those evil bastards".

    2. Re:Only partly agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why if you ever get caught up in the legal system, you might as well grab some guns, walk into the police station, and take out as many of them as you can. Perhaps if enough wrongfully accused people do this, it'll kick start the revolution this cesspool of a country so badly needs.

    3. Re:Only partly agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certianly would like to see you experts get any data off of my "paranoid" brother's hard drive...

      gauss coils wrapped around all drives and 6 inches of primercord (YES, explosives) on the top of each of them. if you move his computer or unplug any of the cables thery detonate 30 seconds after the gauss coils were operating...

      and yes... he has accidently detonated his computer once.

      I dare any of you experts to retrieve any data from a hard drive that has spent 30 seconds in a gauss field....

    4. Re:Only partly agree by philovivero · · Score: 1

      Wow! Your paranoid brother has enough circumstantial evidence to put him away in "pound the terrorist in the ass" prison for twenty years.

      Just that post alone would be enough to get any paranoid-delusional jury (that is, all of them) to put him away.

    5. Re:Only partly agree by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can just see this search warrant go down:
      We executed a search warrant against the subject, but his computer exploded before we could get anything. I guess we have to let him go.

    6. Re:Only partly agree by CognitivelyDistorted · · Score: 1

      The only revolution it would start would be the one to create a police state to execute all those child-ogling, cop-shooting psychos. And 20 million innocent people. If it saves just one child, after all. Count me out.

    7. Re:Only partly agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How on earth is this enough to get a conviction? There's just no evidence of a crime here!

  71. Two Versions: Aggressive vs Political by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Political Version

    Mention it verbally to your manager. Leave it at that. It is now somebody else's problem. Do this if you trust your manager.

    Aggressive Version

    Email it to your manager. Print it out and keep, together with any replies (but don't worry, you won't get any). Assuming you have a good record of the company, this would look embarrasing were there to be any reliation.

    Ultra Aggressive Version

    As above, but CC Human Resources.

    P.S. Many companies have "hot lines" to report abuse. Don't use these. The facade of integrity that most companys protray falls apart if anybody is important is implicated.

  72. hey stupid, better check your reporting laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The tech employee may be obligated as a primary reporter, just like a social worker or a doctor. If you are, and the employee destroys evidence, then you're a party to obstruction of justice. This is not one of those "fun" charges. Or you could be sued civilly, again, not fun.

    I'm 50, and there's no way I would fuck with this, the cops would be in there pronto, let the prosecutor inform the owners. You're crazy if you think your boss would back you on evidence destruction/obstruction charges. Hell, they'd HAVE to fire you for those.

  73. Re:Right to face accusers, "anonymous" email accou by CaseyB · · Score: 1
    Except the constitution, which says people have a right to face their accusers.

    It's not just an accusation, it's a pointer to hard evidence. Why does it matter who found the evidence?

  74. Actually, a company DOES exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations are considered people -- that is the entire reason they exist. The actions of a corporation, such as filing chap11, etc, have no effect on its employees or board members (aside from stock prices). There are many instances where the corporation is punished or applauded by the legal system but its individual members are not.

    I wouldn't have a corporation that was a proprietorship -- 'twould be a silly place.

  75. It doesn't add up... by jdreed1024 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the article:

    The next day, Perry gave the PC to Gross to back up, fearing it might crash and lose valuable data.

    In the process, according to the suit, Gross opened a folder titled "my music," within which was another folder, named "nime," then another, "nime2." It was here, Gross said in an interview, that he encountered the illicit content. "I didn't have to click on any files when I went into the folder," says Gross. "There were thumbnail images, so I was pretty much instantly exposed to that."

    If Gross hadn't opened those folders, he wouldn't have come across the offensive images in the first place. But Perry and Gross say it wasn't unusual for them to check the content of folders when troubleshooting; a large file, for example, can be an indication that a virus is at work.

    I don't buy this. Are they claiming that standard procedure for these folks, when looking for a virus, is not to boot with a known-good disk and run an up-to-date virus scanner, but rather to go through folders looking for large files which might "be an indication that a virus is at work"? If so, that's pretty crappy. Well, I have this huge file called PAGEFILE.SYS on my C:\ drive, I guess I have a virus (it's Windows' swap file, for those who use other OSes), right? Sigh.

    I also don't buy the "they were looking in the folder for files to backup" argument, either. That's not the way you do it. You use Windows backup, or a 3rd party utility, or a disk-imaging program (like Ghost for windows or DiskCopy for Mac) or you drag everything to a server for later restoration, or you use an external firewire/USB drive. You don't poke around for files and copy them one by one. Apart from being horribly inefficient, that would also kill the client's directory structure. For example, within my documents folders, I have subfolders for different classes, and for things like correspondance, and receipts, and the like. If some tech support company had to back up my stuff, and had copied the files one by one, instead of copying the entire tree, I'd be real pissed off.

    So I don't think that they quite came across the porn in the line of duty. I think they were looking around without any good reason. (Not that this makes child porn any less wrong, but it does cloud the issue of discovery and reporting)

    There is, of course, the other issue, which is that by default, newer versions of Windows use thumbnail view, which is unfortunate. If the prof had been using regular list view, and the techs had double-clicked the files, they wouldn't stand a chance of defending themselves. This raises the issue of just what exactly is "invading someone's privacy"? Even filenames can say a lot about someone. For example, if you see someone's desktop, and they have a bunch of files named "naked_teens_1.jpg" through "naked_teens_50.jpg", what are you going to think about them? What if the files were named "12_year_old_naked.jpg"? Does that change things? Suppose you wrote an editorial to your newspaper about how much you though Al Qaeda sucked. You named this file "al_qaeda_letter.txt". You take your PC in for service, and some tech sees it, and decides to report you to the FBI. (Not too far-fetched in this day and age). Are filenames public or private information? Sure, you can't prevent people from seeing filenames, but do they have the right to act upon them? (This applies to other issues, like when the RIAA found files with the name "usher" and "mp3" and assumed they were songs when they actually were some prof's lectures.)

    I work in tech support, and I find myself in lots of situations when I have access to users PCs. The general guideline where I work is to see as little as possible. For example, If I'm working on a PC, I try to stay at the root level as much as possible. When we need to backup a PC, we drag the entire directory tree to a USB drive (if its PC) or a FireWire drive (if it's a Mac), or a server if nei

    --
    There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    1. Re:It doesn't add up... by KaiKaitheKai · · Score: 3, Funny
      Well, I have this huge file called PAGEFILE.SYS on my C:\ drive, I guess I have a virus (it's Windows' swap file, for those who use other OSes), right? Sigh.
      Yes, you do have a virus. Windows.
    2. Re:It doesn't add up... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Don't ask, don't tell" really is the best policy in this case.

      That's exactly what the filmmakers who make that sick crap want you to think. They don't want you to ask little Suzzie why she comes into school crying, and they dont' want her to tell you why either.

      Normally I would agree with you, but in the case of child porn, I don't. People who have it need help. The children in it need to be stopped from being forced to make it. If an employee spends all day in his office whacking off, I woudln't care, as long as he was getting his work done. But if he was bringing on stuff that directly harmed children, then I would have sonething to say about it.

    3. Re:It doesn't add up... by WNight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about the issue of most child pornography being legal somewhere else? Nobody is claiming that there are child-molestation rings cranking out kiddie rape videos. I don't doubt that there are a few, but surely 99%+ are simply Dutch porn where the age of consent is lower than 18.

      Hell, many of "our" porn sites proudly state "Only 18!". How is that not a crime for us, but a mortal crime for someone in a country where 19 is the age of consent?

      Videos/Pics that actually involve harm to a minor certainly deserve the witch-hunt mentality we see on here, but nobody is questioning the fact that this is probably only illegal because of an arbitrary limit being different between countries.

    4. Re:It doesn't add up... by etymxris · · Score: 3, Interesting
      That's exactly what the filmmakers who make that sick crap want you to think. They don't want you to ask little Suzzie why she comes into school crying, and they dont' want her to tell you why either.
      While it is indeed noble to stop this immoral activity that happens in secret, we have to weigh this against the alternatives. And while you may think that stopping child porn is more important than anything else in the world, it isn't. What's more important? Life, for one. Freedom, for two. Privacy, for three. Now, any of these in their absolute will have negative consequences. Must you perserve the life of someone who is shooting at you? Must you preserve the freedom of one who takes it away from others (i.e., a kidnapper)? Must we protect the privacy of those that we already know to have done many illegal things in secret? The answer to all of these is "No". So there are limits on these things.

      But in this case it's different. The way you pose it, there is a dilemma between two choices:
      1. Strong privacy and a clandestine culture of child pornography.
      2. No privacy and the eradication of child pornography.

      Maybe in your world (1) is better, but I definitely prefer (2). Total loss of privacy is not something I'd sacrifice to stop child pornography, as noble as its eradication would be.

      Maybe I'm attacking a straw man, but I don't think so. You speak as though any invasion of privacy is justified if it discovers something like child porn. But this is only known after the fact. So there are two choices: (a) snooping without discovery of child porn, or (b) snooping with discovery of child porn. The actor who snoops cannot know whether they are facing (a) or (b). And what they cannot know they cannot act on. And what they cannot act on they cannot be held morally responsible for--ought implies can. So by moral theory, these actions are by necessity equivalent. And, if in your mind, (b) is justified, then (a) must also be justified.

      But (a) is not justified. No one has a right to invade my privacy without any reason to suspect me of wrong-doing. And if you think about it, you should come to the same conclusion.

    5. Re:It doesn't add up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I also don't buy the "they were looking in the folder for files to backup" argument, either. That's not the way you do it. You use Windows backup, or a 3rd party utility, or a disk-imaging program (like Ghost for windows or DiskCopy for Mac) or you drag everything to a server for later restoration, or you use an external firewire/USB drive.

      You might have the hour or two to ghost an entire drive, but our policy is to ftp the user's documents directory and any other directories which they may be storing documents in (we do a search for word and excel docs and ask the user just in case), cached e-mail, and favorites. This works for us because virtually all apps that our employees use store data server-side, with the exception of MS Office. The My Documents also tends to catch whatever they were doing on the side during work (like people's three-gig music collections).

      With the ridiculous amount of cached data and other stuff, it's simply not worth it to ghost a drive when you're upgrading a user or nuking their drive unless there are good reasons to do so.

      In corporate situations, you also have to realize that the computer in question is usually company property, so issues of personal privacy go out the window. They may be willing to overlook the fact that you're wanking off on the company dime, but you better not be doing anything illegal with company property, or they're liable as well.

    6. Re:It doesn't add up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've articulated several issues very well. Great post.

    7. Re:It doesn't add up... by sootman · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you *do* have to poke around. Clueless users put crap *everywhere*--documents folder, desktop, top level of the hard drive, inside application folders, etc etc etc. Where I work (mostly Macs) I've seen applications and the whole 'control panels' folder in the apple menu instead of aliases, the system folder moved into the documents folder (to keep the top level of the HD clean), you name it. (My favorite thing to see on a Mac desktop is a windows installer (.exe) for realplayer.) But if you're the one who has to reimage their drive, it's *your* ass if all their data doesn't make the trip safely. Since you can't read their mind, and they literally _do not know_ where all their important stuff is, you have no choice but to dig. It's no excuse to blame lost data on them not putting it in the right place. You're a tech. You should, and do, know better.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    8. Re:It doesn't add up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also don't buy the "they were looking in the folder for files to backup" argument, either. That's not the way you do it. You use Windows backup, or a 3rd party utility, or a disk-imaging program (like Ghost for windows or DiskCopy for Mac) or you drag everything to a server for later restoration, or you use an external firewire/USB drive. That's nice, but depends on if you have those goodies. If a client's directory structure is messed up, or has a virus, and you're simply backing up data files, using Ghost or DiskCopy is a waste of time and space, and simply serves to copy the f**ked up disk right back to its original configuration without repair. Now I own a small shop, and yes, I've had to do just what these techs did. I wasn't being nosy, I was just seeing what directories had files in them prior to backing up them up to CD. It isn't feasible to back them up to server - I don't have one. Windows has that mostly annoying "preview" capability for pictures, and if it isn't turned off, you just go to "My Pictures", and get presented a preview of all the pictures in the directory - if there are any. You aren't "snooping", Windows does it for you as a "feature".

    9. Re:It doesn't add up... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      No you don't have to poke around... not if you have competent admins, and a good, consistent, data storage policy.

      Everywhere I've ever worked in the tech industry (except the startup that was too new to HAVE a policy... but they adopted something similar) has had a policy, for both the windows and Linux/Unix networks, that *ALL* files go on the FILE SERVER, where everything is RAID'ed and periodicly backed up. The local hard drive was to be considered, at best, temporary storage and could be re-imaged at any time.

      This has the added advantage of enableing companies to buy the most dirt-cheap dell POS's... those Optiplex boxes with the 6GB hard drives. 6GB is more than enough for an NT installation, AND a Linux installation, either as a dual-boot. or a VMware guest. EVERYTHING else, was to be on the file servers.

      At my first job out of college, an engineer was even fired because of this. In violation of the policy (Which he had to read and sign before ever logging on in the first place.) he was keeping most of his work on his desktop machine. One of those windows viruses (melissia, IIRC) got loose in our network. So we all got to sit around doing nothing for a day. That night, the IT guys got to pull a LOT of overtime, while they re-imaged the department's workstations. Next morning, guess where said engineer's last six weeks worth of work was? HINT: the answer is NOT: "On the file server, where it would have been safely backed up every 24 hours.". It only took about another 24 hours for him to become an ex-engineer.

      The rest of us were not symphathetic at all.... WE had to redo his work, on top of our own assignments. Even then, he made us miss our deadline by a week.

      cya,
      john

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    10. Re:It doesn't add up... by nachoboy · · Score: 1

      Quite a few posters have pointed out that in the latest desktop version of OFOS (our favorite operating system) thumbnail view is turned on by default in folders containing mostly pictures, exposing the contents of the images to users who took no explicit action to open the images.

      It may also be worth pointing out that if thumbnail view is turned on on the folder ABOVE said folder containing images, the icon for the subfolder will display a small "sampling" of that folder's image content. Not only do you not have to open the files explicitly, you may not even have to open the actual folder! It's blinding easy to stumble across content without looking for it.

      When I'm asked to fix someone's computer, backing up and restoring all of the users documents is sometimes the best plan of action. I always confirm this explicitly with the user before taking any action, but even after that, I try to have the user there confirming everything I copy usually on a folder-by-folder basis. It's not worth my time and resources to copy the whold HDD (including gigs of temp files and OS data that will be reinstalled), but I'm not dissecting their latest research paper either. In any case, I usually take a very technical view of what I'm doing and most of the time can't remember any of the file/folder names I encountered.

    11. Re:It doesn't add up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a knee-slapper. You should be a comedian.

      Why this is modded as funny is beyond me. What does the OS have to do with the topic at hand?

      Not a damn thing, that's what.

    12. Re:It doesn't add up... by atticusfinch1970 · · Score: 1
      No offense but, all this quibbling over whether the techs did the right thing and were they snooping, is irrelevant. Techs routinely HAVE to check out systems thoroughly to avoid the 2-3+ hour process of reinstalling Windows and every damn piece of software a user might have installed.

      Give you an example. One of my users, like most end users, blindly double-clicks on an .exe attachment from someone he doesn't know. The executable starts adding and replacing replacing files in the oddest of directories, including the Windows folders, with copies of itself and WinVNC (for remote control), and modifies the registry to load these executables at start-up. So I look in the registry to see what loads at start-up and see winvnc.exe is being loaded from the \my documents folder. Norton, with the latest updates doesn't catch it, because WinVNC is a perfectly legit app. So, the simplest thing, for me and the end-user, is to surgically remove WinVNC and the copies of the trojan and explain (yet again) some basic rules regarding attachments. My point is, sometimes you HAVE NO CHOICE as a tech to check out the PC and follow the trail of the problem. This business about techs having no business looking at user's data folders is hogwash and those saying it have never been responsible for maintaining a network of computers.

    13. Re:It doesn't add up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who have it need help.

      If by help you mean a visit to a pound me in the ass prison, I wouldn't think you were a hypocrat.

    14. Re:It doesn't add up... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      I sum it up this way: Many, many people store their stuff in folders on the desktop, which (if you are so afflicted) is within either C:\Windows\ or whatever that other, username-based path is in the NT5 variants. And obviously Windows system directories are not something you wanna carry over across backups, etc.

      Like all other things, this is only illegal if you get caught. If you wanna maintain your porn on your work PC, either learn about encrypted disk images and similar, or learn to fix the damn thing yourself without schlepping it over to IT.

      I mean, what, do you call the plumber to unclog your bong?

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    15. Re:It doesn't add up... by sootman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you work in a large company with a monolithic IT department which has no data storage policy (and wouldn't enforce it if they did) then it's a whole different ball game. Hell, it's a whole different sport. OK, not quite. Same sport, different rules. Like football and futbol. (Yes, that's the point--same in name only.)
      Besides, the *users* (as much as we hate them) are the ones making the product this company sells. *We* work for *them*. *They* are the boss, *they* run the show, *they* are the ones earning the comany money. Our job is to do for them whatever they need to do their job. Within reason, of course, and yes, it'd be nice to do things the Right Way, but in the real world...

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    16. Re:It doesn't add up... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > a large company with a monolithic IT department

      It's been my experience that these sort of companies are EXACTLY the sort of places that DO place policy over productivity. The first job out of college, that I mentioned, was with Lockheed Martin. You don't GET much larger or more impersonal than that. And, with rare exceptions, they do NOT value individual engieers as contributors. Everyone there is just another source of man-hours. And you DO follow policy; because everything IS documentated and you ARE easily replaced.

      I'm not saying that's a good thing. In fact, that's the main reason I left, in favor of a small (tiny even) company where I felt my efforts WOULD make a difference. But that's the way it is. (Though, the way the economy turned out, I would've been better off had I stayed at the big, evil, impersonal defence contractor. But hindsight is 20/20.)

      Besides, data storage like I described shouldn't just be done because it's "the policy". It should be done that way, or similarly, because it makes SENCE. Loseing data like my ex-colleague did is just stupid, reckless, and flat out unnecessary.

      I've HAVE been on both sides of the IT desk. And even when, as an engineer, I was annoyed by certian policies, I DID understand that, in most cases, they were there for GOOD reasons.

      EVERYONE, IT and engineer alike, should understand that RAID and regular offsite backups are your friends!

      cya,
      john

      --
      Imagine all the people...
  76. Re:Right to face accusers, "anonymous" email accou by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    Right. The accuser will be the police, who find all the kiddie porn on his computer.

    The accuser is the person who is charging you.... or giving evidence in court against you.

  77. Interesting Double Standard here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a forum where the large majority of posters downloaded copyrighted material and are libertarians, there appears to be quite a double standard here.

    On one hand, (the majority of) claim that violent video games and movies doesn't influence the viewers to incite similar behavior.

    On the other hand, you say that viewing child pornography causes further harm by influencing the viewers to do harm to children.

    Note, that in no way do I support child pornography, but that I'm just noticing a logical discrepency in the morality/beliefs of many here. At what point do you draw the line? Either you believe that viewing certain material influences the behavior of the viewer in some way, or you don't. The content of the material is irrelevant in this case.

  78. It seems very simple to me .. by dk.r*nger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a tech guy, justified or not, should discover that sort of sh%t, he should alert management, and give them a chance to handle the case and do damage control as they see fit..

    If managenment doesn't feel it needs to do anything, or the action doesn't match your moral standards, you don't wanna work there anyway - so go ahead and blow the whistle - anonymously or not.

    Working for M$ is selling your soul?! No, working for an employer that doesn't report child porn in order to protect marketing interests is selling your soul!

  79. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by seinman · · Score: 1

    Ha ha ha... I love having a sense of humor. Too bad "A Proud American" doesn't know what it's like.

  80. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try Marc Dorcel films. French porn flicks generally seem more "tasteful" to women - but of course, as with anything that has to do with women and pornography, YMMV indeed.

  81. Re:The company did the right thing. by gdarklighter · · Score: 1

    The proper action for them to take would have been to simply delete the offending material, thereby eliminating the potential liability to the company and would avoid tarnishing the company's public image.

    And leave a felon and a pedophile on the streets? There are enough already. By reporting the professor to their supervisor, they gave the company a chance to do the right thing and report this criminal behavior to the police, which would have kept the company's public image clean.

    Also note the timing of the employees being put on probation:

    Still, on June 20, the same day the police executed a search warrant on Samuels' office computer, Perry was put on probation for tardiness, excessive phone usage, having visitors at her office cubicle, and dressing provocatively, the suit says. On July 16, Gross was hit with his own probation letter for tardiness, failure to respond to a help-desk call, and lack of knowledge about a Norton application used by PC administrators.

    That sound suspicious to me, especially considering they had good performance reviews.

    Corporate assets must be protected

    At what cost? What if that cost is the obstruction of justice? The employees claim they were told "the police detectives didn't have enough information." In that case, I think the employees were justified in going to the police to make sure they had ALL the information. Their supervisors obviously weren't.

    And y'know, just once I'd like to see a CEO as motivated by morality as profit.

  82. "Who" messed up our priorities? by pjh3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So now you can lose you're job for reporting people with child pornography, but get a freaking medal for reporting people with mp3's of the work of musicians that get caught with child pornography?

  83. Blackmail by Xaoswolf · · Score: 0
    Unless the guy is making less money than you, then go ahead and tell the cops with an annonymous tip that someone is trafficing child porn from their computer.

    I believe that they have to check on things like that.b

  84. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've always found it boring, cheezy, and fairly degrading toward women.

    Yeah you're more for the child porn, eh?

    Interesting that you give your take on porn: Apparently you go hunning just to sit back and go "boring!", "cheezy!", etc.

    Sexuality, and the desire for the female body, is genetically coded into most males. That is a simple REALITY. Either you're a eunich, or a total bullshitter (people who spout your sort of bullshit are usually the ones sodomizing the young kids at boyscouts). Men who have girlfriends, wives, or harems still enjoy the occasional bit of pornography. As far as the PATHETIC "degrading toward women" attempt at Bleeding Heartism, realize that they're capitalists taking advantage of an asset. Calling it degrading is akin to feeling sorry that poor actors are being paid millions to read a couple of lines and feign tears.

  85. Turn a blind eye? by cabalamat2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From a point of view of avoiding personal hassle to oneself, it might be best to pretend one has seen nothing, in situations where that is plausible.

    I really don't see how it is possible for an employee to get out of the situation of being sacked for one reason, if the company says the reason is another -- since the employee cannot prove why they are really being sacked.

  86. Even Senior VP's get fired for blowing the whistle by CaptainFrito · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I reported rampant software piracy to our CEO and board member and got fired within hours. This happened in January. Now I sense that I'm blacklisted.

  87. One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fag.

    1. Re:One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!!! It's funny because it's true! Bold Marauder is a fag!

  88. Thumbnail Images by Twyst · · Score: 1

    Well, after reading a lot of the comments here, I notice that people are blasting these techs because they "snooped" around in the PC.

    Now, one thing that I think is being overlooked.. is the fact that when you go to My Documents / My Pictures.. by DEFAULT, it displays thumbnail images of pictures, in WinME or XP.

    Given that from what I read of the article, it's not like the techs were digging through folders to find stuff, I think it's pretty likely that the guy had the pics in one of those folders.

    I know that often when I've had to shift files over a network to preserve them, I'll glance inside the folder after the transfer just to make sure I got everything.

    --
    -- Karma is for people who think they matter.
    1. Re:Thumbnail Images by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      I know that often when I've had to shift files over a network to preserve them, I'll glance inside the folder after the transfer just to make sure I got everything.

      If you're that worried about preserving privacy and still that determine to verify the files were all transferred, why not use a simple shell script to count the files and compare the sizes? Not only would it be better than looking in a directory you don't belong in, but you would also be able to do your job more efficiently.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  89. credible grounds for search warrants by coyote-san · · Score: 1

    Since you handle is "proud American," I assume you're in the US. Things are rapidly changing here, but at the moment before the cops can act there either needs to be facts in plain sight (e.g., the kiddie porn is available through a website) or they'll need to get a search warrant. To get a search warrant they'll need to have some credible reason to believe that a crime has been committed - and anonymous complaints rarely cut it.

    Furthermore, an anonymous complaint makes the job of the investigator much harder. The first defense of someone caught with real kiddie porn is that they were framed. Obviously whoever made the anonymous report framed them! This may be bullshit, but the detective has to disprove it and it's a lot harder to do when the person reporting it is anonymous.

    (Before somebody asks, I'm contrasting real kiddie porn with, oh, the stuff Traci Lords made when she was using fradulent IDs to prove she was over 18. In that case the first defense is that the viewer had no clue the model was 17 instead of 18 or 19.)

    So while you might think you're doing something useful, you really just wasting everyone's time. They can't even track the number of anonymous reports since there's no way to ensure that a dozen anonymous reports aren't all from a single person.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  90. Re:agree by ramzak2k · · Score: 1

    Totally agree.

    I mean lets think of the reason Collegis could have fired them for:

    How about Total incompetency that resulted in heavy losses for their company while the entire industry is going through an economic slup -
    forcing the company to let them go.

    - This totally flies in the face of their previous year reviews. Not knowing how to run a particular Norton program requires the company to train the employee - not fire him/her. And yes, they were FIRED and not let go ! If there were other employees who were as competent as these two, it begs the question as to why they were kept back.

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
  91. Use some common sense by tmark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You work for the company. You should at least consider the company's interests. Having the cops investigate could expose the company to considerable costs if the cops have to shut down the network or look around for other illegal files, which they may well have cause to, since all they (and you) really know is illegal material is stored on a company computer - which for all you know was put there by some disgruntled employee or admin at the office.

    The right thing to do is report it to your manager. Presumably they will bring it to the attention of the authorities, and if they don't, well THEN you consider going to the cops yourself.

    Why is whistleblowing so sanctified when it's on the part of the little guy ? Would we automatically want companies notifying the cops if a drug test showed we had (say) coke in our system ? Should we expect our neighbours to call the RIAA if they have evidence that you're sharing files illegally ?

    1. Re:Use some common sense by tigga · · Score: 1
      Well, you are talking about felony, right? You supposed to report to authorities no matter what.

      BTW you didn't read article - they actually reported to their boss and then it went to police.

    2. Re:Use some common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should we expect our neighbours to call the police if they have evidence that you're being raped and murdered in your backyard? Or should they just shut up as long as no blood lands on their side of the fence?

  92. For many, reporting child porn is required by Ryu2 · · Score: 4, Informative
    In California, and most if not all other states, certain professions who come in contact with children are required by law to report suspected child abuse, which porn would certainly qualify as. These professions include the obvious (doctors, police, teachers, etc.) and not so obvious (photo processors).


    Why shouldn't a computer support person have similar protection under the law, especially in this day and age, where so much of the porn is in digital form?

    --
    There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:For many, reporting child porn is required by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because "Child Pornography" as demonized by the FBI probably shouldn't be a crime. As far as I've ever heard, it's all 16-year olds from Amsterdam doing what are 18-year olds are allowed to do.

      It's stupid escalation of terminology. Now everything is terrorism, even if it's what would have been called Assault with a Deadly Weapon a few years back. Ditto with kiddy porn. A few years ago the term would have meant 12yo or under, and rape. Now it seems to be used for anything where anyone is under the age of consent in any country. I'm not ready to condone locking people up for watching dutch porno. I want more details before I grab the pitch-fork.

    2. Re:For many, reporting child porn is required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kiddie porn is *not* child abuse; It is the PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE that the crime of child abuse occured.

      Should it be a crime to possess copies of the photographs of the stacks of dead bodies the Allies found in the concentration camps when they invaded Nazi Germany? It exactly the same thing.

      Track down perpetrators of crimes, but don't waste my tax dollars making criminals out of people just because the data on their hard drives offends some thought police.

    3. Re:For many, reporting child porn is required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I've ever heard, it's all 16-year olds from Amsterdam doing what are 18-year olds are allowed to do.

      Instead of 16 years old, you should be thinking 6 years old, or 16 months old. Its real. Its horrible. You should thank whatever gods you believe in that you have remained blissfully ignorant thus far.

  93. This is not about acceptable use. by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Informative

    The posession of child pornography is a felony. This isn't about some guy doing something against company policy.... whether the company thinks it's OK or not is irrelevant.... it's NOT ok.

    And technically, if you have knowledge of a felony and don't report it, YOU have committed a crime, as well.

    Secondly, if you are sitting in front of my computer, yes, it's my business what you do with it. You can make arguments about the quality of a work environment, sure... but ultimately, NO, you DONT have a right to do whatever you want with a computer that is not yours.

    Furthermore, as someone in charge of the company's computing resource, you absolutely DO have the right to snoop around, especially when company policy dictates that computers are not for personal use and all data on all computers belong to the company.

    As for people installing things you tell them not to... tighten up your controls and *prevent* them from installing it.

    1. Re:This is not about acceptable use. by Qrlx · · Score: 0

      The posession of child pornography is a felony. This isn't about some guy doing something against company policy.... whether the company thinks it's OK or not is irrelevant.... it's NOT ok.

      And the possesion of a single MP3 can net the company a $150,000 fine. Now, which is more relevant to the corporation: One employee carted off for kiddie porn, or a hundred MP3s that will bankrupt the entire organization when the RIAA sues for $15 million in damages?

      And technically, if you have knowledge of a felony and don't report it, YOU have committed a crime, as well.

      Hey, maybe those kiddie porn pictures were the legally acceptable kind, you know the ones where they've been digitally edited and no actual children were harmed in the making of said kiddie porn?

      Don't bite off more than you can chew, techie. Get to the desktop, fix the problem, and be done with it. Don't go and decide who's breaking what laws, and especially don't take a sensitivie issue like that to the cops without getting some backup from management first. Simple common sense.

    2. Re:This is not about acceptable use. by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      And don't forget to close your italics tag, either.

      D'OH!

  94. Non-discolsure? by zakezuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I would agree that the person was in the right calling the cops, but it opens up a can of worms as far as trust between IT professionals and companies that they contract to.

    People generaly want to protect their privacy, even in cases where a person who did what I'd consider to be the honest, moral, and legal thing, businesses don't tend to hire people who phone the cops on clients, right or wrong. Business if full of shady dealings, even how profit margin businesses like resturants and their dealings with local health inspectors.

    This is sad but true.

    What comes to mind, typical non-discolsure agreements prohibit you from discussing what you see in the workplace. Sadly, violating that even in this case tends to get you fired.

    Personaly I feel there should indeed be a law protecting wistle blowers, but until then, do it ANONYMOUSLY.... like in this case, burn the CD of the offending material, and send to the FBI, or better yet, setup a simple script to e-mail the images on a time delay.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  95. Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Child pornography should be legal. This is really a shame that something that is natural is illegal. How as a society as we evolve to this non sense?

  96. Tell HR by ces · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you discover illegal goodies on a machine, what should you do about it?

    The policy at my employer is for us to tell our boss who then tells the VP HR.

    In every case I know of the employee was fired and in one case where child porn was found the employee was arrested on the spot.

    The right call at most companies is to punt the situation to HR and let them deal with it.

    --
    Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  97. Corporate assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just proof to all that no good deed goes unpunished.

    "I found a total sicko in our company hoarding kiddie pr0n on our system! I got him arrested and potentially saved the company a huge investigation!"

    "That's great, now collect your personal belongings and be out the door in ten minutes, you're fired."

    Well FUCK YOU TOO.

  98. um, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you read the article, or were a pc tech you would know that a large folder is often a sign of a computer virus which is what I was looking for when I came across these files...

    1. Re:um, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you were manually looking through folders, rather than doing a full system scan? Sounds fishy to me.

    2. Re:um, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slightly fishy? maybe, but the guy was having tons of computer problems and a few things struck me as quirky that I went and checked out after the scan was completed. some of these viruses take more than a system scan if the machine has been infected for a while and they can produce large folders such as the one with sketchy things in it. like that which was described in the article.

  99. UK has thought crimes by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    It is explicitly illegal (since the home secretary Michael Howard) to draw images that look like child porn.

  100. If you can't debate, MODERATE! w00t! by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 1

    Maybe the next mod to come along will do some reading before performing a knee-jerk moderation.

  101. Fortunately the founding fathers didn't agree by Arker · · Score: 1

    Which is why they left us with an interesting rule of law, 'innocent until proven guilty' - you may have heard of it?

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  102. The employees did the right thing by dszd0g · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They reported it to their supervisor. Then the company has the ability to handle it how they like.

    I don't see why anyone should get in trouble for reporting an illegal activity going on at work to their supervisor. I could understand if the employees directly went to the police or media and not giving the company the ability to handle it.

    Maybe I've had the experience of working at better companies. A coworker and I had the wonderful experience of walking into work late one night and all the lights were off and one of the employees was sitting at a computer... well you get the idea. I reported it to my boss and the employee was fired the next day. Their were logs that verified what was going on. Some things just aren't appropriate at work.

    As a system administrator, I always make sure that their is a message drawn up by the legal department that we may discover things in the normal duties of our job. I have never poked around people's stuff. But I have had to go into people's home directories to fix things for them (my general policy is I don't touch your home directory unless you ask me to). However, I do go through system logs occasionally. If something turns up in system logs that shouldn't be there, I will report it to my boss.

    One company I worked for had a policy that we were to ignore any porn found. That was fine with me, it's their decision. This was done after management decided to crack down on it, and it was found that the largest downloaders of porn were some of the vice presidents. After those results, the policy was quickly put in place.

    --
    This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
  103. I hope *you* don't wonder why lawyers are hated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here we are talking about discovering a pervert who's taking advantage of children, and you're worried about is "liability".

    Do you want to talk about liability? What kind of liability would you entail as a lawyer for advocating the cover up of a felony? As the father of a 3-year-old girl, here's a hint: if your advice were to somehow allow a pervert to someway stay on the streets and wind up molesting my little girl, you'd be on my list of assholes to get a .30-06 headache, and I'd dare any jury to convict me. Because I'll be blunt - I'll kill to protect my little girl, and your advise to "protect corporate assets", as you so euphemistically called it, endangers children everywhere.

  104. What I do currently by Archfeld · · Score: 2, Interesting

    JUST DELETE IT, no notice, no complaints, no information. I've been a systems admin for 10 years in one form or another and I've NEVER had backlash from deleting inappropriate content, but then I've never reported anyone either...

    Let the user complain someone removed their MP3's or pr0n. Just let them compain...*signed* BoFH

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:What I do currently by Loosewire · · Score: 1

      you call yourself a BoFH and you would delete all their MP3 and porn without taking a copy for yourself?. - hand in your Bofh badge..... AND the other one.

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
    2. Re:What I do currently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JUST DELETE IT,... I've NEVER had backlash from deleting inappropriate content

      So, you advocate just deleting evidence of kids (like 6 year olds - thats the kind of stuff that goes on) being exploited, and probably raped? No questions asked? Not even a thought that he might be doing it, and that you might be helping save one or more kids from hell on earth by acting?

      I guess you really do deserve that "Bastard From Hell" sig.

      One other thing... please don't reproduce.

    3. Re:What I do currently by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and he didn't even blackmail them. He's definitely not BOfH material.

    4. Re:What I do currently by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      sorry forgot to mention the storage is SAN, I have copies of EVERYTHING already :)

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    5. Re:What I do currently by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64505&cid=5981 848

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    6. Re:What I do currently by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      Well if you're going to be sneaky about it....

  105. I have it all planned out. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "You're a systems admin. On a routine PC repair, you discover a trove of child porn on an employee's PC..."

    I save proof of the offending material, along with the IPs from which it was obtained, etc., such that I could prove it in court. At that point, I go to the CEO and demand weekly "protection" payments to commence immediately in the amount of US$2,000.00 (what a good deal), adjusted semi-annually for inflation and/or any arbitrary amount selected by me, whichever is greater.

    • If someone talks about the blackmail, I produce proof of the offending material, say that the company forced me to accept blackmail payments in exchange for shutting up, and bring down the whole company.
    • If they refuse to pay, I produce proof of the offending material, say that the company forced me to accept blackmail payments in exchange for shutting up, but that I recently decided to stop accepting payments and to "do the right thing" and bring down the whole company.
    • If they talk about the porn, I produce proof of the offending material, say that I tried to talk but was silenced because the company wanted to discredit me, that they forced me to accept blackmail payments in exchange for shutting up, and that I am coming forward to prevent further wrongdoing from taking place in the organization, and, obviously, bring down the whole company.
    • If they do nothing at all, I happily receive all kinds of money.

    KIDDING ASIDE I would actually handle this situation legally and ethically: Save the proof I talked about a moment ago for my own protection, but not to bring down the company. Then, I go to the most in-charge people in the company and talk to them about the problem. Let them call the police, fire the guy, or do whatever they think is right. I save proof of these meetings (like, audio tape of talking to the big shots about it). If they fire me for bringing up the subject with them, or try to silence the issue without busting the asshole who is doing it, I then deem the company unethical and call the police, the media, and every customer this company has and tell everyone about it, getting the company busted big time for not only having tons of child porn on their boxes but also for trying to shut me up and discredit me. It'll be on O'Reilly faster than shit going through a tin horn.

    Oh yeah... And either way, I'd get the biggest, baddest gangsters in town to kick the ass of whoever is looking at that material. It's immoral and unethical because it wastes bandwidth that should be used for transferring FreeBSD ISOs around instead. Want porn? Buy a magazine, asshole.

    1. Re:I have it all planned out. by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      It's immoral and unethical because it wastes bandwidth that should be used for transferring FreeBSD ISOs around instead.

      Yeah, that's why it's immoral and unethical.
      In Slashdotland, that is.

  106. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    Then why do straight porn movies have such ugly men in them? Straight couples tell me they're enough to put the bloke off while watching, let alone the sheila.

  107. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

    this is so true. there is nothing wrong with porn. hell, when wife and i can dump the kids with auntie or grandma for the night, we get a hotel, and will usually rent a movie. but there is huge difference between adults and kids. damn shame some /.'ers can't see the diff. "privacy" doesn't mean i get to do anything if i don't get caught.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  108. Err maybe you by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    should creat err umm a backup copy in case the professor ever 'loses' his, and then you can always let him know you are 'covering his back' for him. I hear tenured professors make a lot more than PC tech-support folks :)

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  109. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by pjh3000 · · Score: 1
    I've always found it boring, cheezy, and fairly degrading toward women.
    That's because you're a woman. Women have romance novels, men have porn.

    I'm a guy, so I find romance novels boring, cheezy, and fairly degrading toward men. ;-)

  110. you're obviously not an honest lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The proper action for them to take would have been to simply delete the offending material,

    That's destruction of evidence, you're not allowed to be a party to that as an Officer of the Court (caps not accidental). Destroying the evidence does not undo the crime. And if you know your client is lying or has destroyed evidence, you MUST inform the court. You cannot stand by if a fraud is perpetrated upon the court.

    This guy's termination is actionable, he needs to find a good lawyer, not a Democratic Party crook seeking to justify Bill Clinton's criminality. He can get big bucks from this, and should.

  111. Two hierarchies, and a note on competence by Old+Man+Kensey · · Score: 4, Informative
    jorlando wrote:

    the article says: "For two hours, Perry tried to fix it, uninstalling and reinstalling antivirus software, but the system continued to malfunction. The next day, Perry gave the PC to Gross to back up, fearing it might crash and lose valuable data."

    Any technician that "fix things" repeatedly installing and uninstalling the same software doesn't deserve the job... but that's my opinion...

    We can't really judge the competence of the IT guys from how the news article describes their actions. Even if this is InfoWeek, you still can't assume that the reporter is technically competent enough to accurately sum up the actions described to him by the people he interviewed in this case. Reporters misquote and describe poorly all the time (I've been quoted in a newspaper 3 or 4 times and I think once were my words accurately transcribed).

    And to report the problem to police is wrong, there is an hierarchy in the company, if they thought that the company wasn't acting accordingly to the case, the should anonymously fill a complain with authorities...

    I keep seeing people saying "These people should have gone through the proper channels." This argument doesn't fly on two counts:

    1) They did in fact go to their supervisor first. Their supervisor took it up the chain and police action resulted. Once police action resulted, it became a criminal matter and anyone with actual knowledge of the crime is perfectly entitled to take what they know to the police.

    2) There are two hierarchies at work here, not just one, and they operate in parallel, not serially. One is your office's corporate hierarchy, which deals with matters relating to the operation of the business. The other is the legal hierarchy, which deals with matters relating to the legality of various actions. In this case, both came into play -- but the corporate hierarchy can't trump the legal one, or preempt it.

    If you want another reason why it's not only justified but required to go to the law or otherwise make sure law enforcement is informed of a felony in progress in the workplace: Your office policies are a matter of contract law between you and your employer, and contracts are not allowed to force one party to commit a crime, or become an accessory to a crime. So if a crime is being committed in the workplace, you are required to report it to the legal authorities (or see that it's reported) if you know about it, and you may be required to report it to your boss.

    None of the above should be taken as saying the company wasn't in the right in firing them, but the workers are justified and required to go to the law with what they knew, even if they knew it as a result of violating corporate policy (in which case the company is justified in firing them for said violations). The company doesn't get veto rights of any kind over the reporting of a crime in the workplace.

    To make an analogy, if you broke into an employee's office to play a prank, and found a rape in progress, would you call the cops, or would you call your boss (assuming your boss isn't the rapist)? At that point it ceases to matter why you were there, for purposes of who to report the crime to, but it may matter in that you might lose your job over it (which is, really, as it should be).

    --
    -- Old Man Kensey
    1. Re:Two hierarchies, and a note on competence by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      If you want another reason why it's not only justified but required to go to the law or otherwise make sure law enforcement is informed of a felony in progress in the workplace: Your office policies are a matter of contract law between you and your employer, and contracts are not allowed to force one party to commit a crime, or become an accessory to a crime. So if a crime is being committed in the workplace, you are required to report it to the legal authorities (or see that it's reported) if you know about it, and you may be required to report it to your boss.

      I agree that with certain crimes in certain situations, it is necessary to go to the law with it. HOWEVER, consider this:

      I work for you. I find kiddie porn on your computer. I call the cops, you go to jail.

      That's one scenario.

      I work for you. I find kiddie porn on your computer. I tell you that I found it, you say "It's not mine" and immediately delete. Now, you know that there's kiddie porn in your company. So you start looking for, company liability and so forth, not to mention that YOU HAVE KIDS yourself. Kiddie porn is linked to the act. Fact is, people that molest children also look at porn displaying the molestation. I'm all over the fact that viewing kiddie porn doesn't make someone molest children, but to use another analogy, armed robbers read Guns and Ammo. At least, the few that I've known did.

      You should *never* go recklessly calling the cops. If you believe that you should call the cops to make sure that justice has a possibility of getting served, then you must take responsibility for determining for yourself whether or not the person who will get it is in fact violating the law. If I found kiddie porn in my wife's home directory, know what I'd do? I'd install a firewall and a sniffer, and delete it. If it reappears, then we've got trouble. (I'd also look over the kids and ask them probing questions and so forth) But you can't presume guilt any more than the law can.

      To make an analogy, if you broke into an employee's office to play a prank, and found a rape in progress, would you call the cops, or would you call your boss (assuming your boss isn't the rapist)? At that point it ceases to matter why you were there, for purposes of who to report the crime to, but it may matter in that you might lose your job over it (which is, really, as it should be).

      While this ia good analogy, it is flawed in several respects. First, if you break into a room and find a rape in progress, you don't call anybody. You kill the rapist. 'nuff said, right? If you don't, then you should be killed. Simple as that. Second problem: Rape is a different crime than saving kiddie porn. I know from experience that rape can be cleaned off afterwards (not direct personal experience) and covered up, but kiddie porn is stored. You don't have to immediately call the cops to prevent a crime in progress, you have plenty of time to go up corporate channels.

      Finally, the company has a stake in this. If you go to the cops and it gets to the press and the company doesn't have a chance to do anything with it, they get a big ol' black eye in the press. If you talk to your boss, he talks to his boss, whatever, and they call the cops, then the cops are still called, and the press stories will reflect that your company called the cops. Now they look good in the press. You have a responsibility, when you work for a company, to make them money. You also have a responsibility not to hurt them. If you don't want that responsibility with your company, find another fucking job. Now, if you talk to your boss, and he goes to his boss, et. al, and NOTHING HAPPENS, then call the cops. THe company deserves their black eye, at that point.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  112. Why We Have Courts by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

    ". . . that's why we have courts -- to allow both sides to present their positions . . ."

    Pardon me while I die laughing. As is obvious to anyone following the lack of connection between Just results and our "Justice" system, why we have courts is to legitimate the behavior of the rich and powerful and promote their interests. If you're poorer than your opponent, you're wasting your time even showing up -- assuming you can even afford to appear.

    1. Re:Why We Have Courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please take this off-topic drivel elsewhere. If you have issues with your locality's judicial system, please take this up with your lawmakers.

      The US's judicial system is not perfect, but cases you see on TV, where seemingly rich people seem to get the upper hand, are hardly representative.

    2. Re:Why We Have Courts by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

      I have. They tell me there's nothing they can do -- unless you're rich, politicians don't give a flying fuck about you either, dumbass.

      I'm speaking from personal experiences, not something I saw on TV. Take your patronizing attitude and shove it up your ass.

  113. Doesn't change right from wrong.. by LilGuy · · Score: 1

    The mere fact that you may end up fired for doing the RIGHT thing shouldn't sway your decision one way or the other. You do what's right, and if no one else likes it, it's not on your head. I can't imagine a company getting any better publicity over firing someone who DID do the right thing and making it look like they cover up all kinds of other crap. Always do what you think is right I guess. Don't worry about anything else.

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  114. Other possible whistle blowing. by blanks · · Score: 1

    You're a janitor and you find a bag of crack in a desk where you work. Or theirs a meth lab in the apartment building you manage.

    Its illegal. It's that simple. These problems are not as simple as someone stealing office supplies. These are real life situations where someone could get hurt.

    If that's not enough, then how about the bandwidth used by this person, or the storage used to hold them. Their both property of the collage, and the collage could have been held responsible for the photographs.

    --
    I deleted my sig years ago.
    1. Re:Other possible whistle blowing. by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1
      You're a janitor and you find a bag of crack in a desk where you work.

      Fine, off the crack monkey goes, down the river (for committing a victimless crime, I might add). And you, Mr. Janitor, are fired for snooping in desks. Seems fair to me.

  115. Computer stores. by blanks · · Score: 1

    I know a few people who work for a computer store that upgrade and fix peoples computers.

    I have been told stories about people having full kiddy porn themes on their windows machines, or gigabits of kiddy porn fully available and in view of the people working on the systems.

    Their company policy is if any child porn is found on the machine, to hand over all information about the person and the machine to the police, and they take care of the rest.

    --
    I deleted my sig years ago.
    1. Re:Computer stores. by trash+eighty · · Score: 1

      this happened in the UK when a rock star took his PC to be repaired and they found child porn on it. he ended up going to jail, mind u he already had plenty of criminal records...

  116. Re:Chain of command bullshit by BitterOak · · Score: 1
    In this case, the chain of command is trumped by the law. The police is the first line in the chain of command because a crime was commited.

    So if you see a coworking downloading The Matrix Reloaded, you'd immediately call 911?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  117. Pathetic response from Collegis by fname · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read both articles. The whiny tone of Collegis' response cannot be missed. They acknowledge that they refused to talk about the case, then attack the newspaper for running the story without trying to tell both sides of it? Ridiculous. If the media worked this way, anytime some sleezebag wanted to keep a story out of the news, all they have to do is refuse to talk?

  118. Re:The company did the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need to mention you are an attorney, it's obvious, only such a lowlife would consider doing something obviously wrong to save his own ass. Child porn is so wrong even /.ers agree on that. You are saying they should break company policy (they state reporting to their boss was the right thing) and cover a pedophile. Are you going to run for president next?

  119. Re:Maybe this was really unrelated to whistlleblow by demon · · Score: 1

    Well, it _was_ running Windows. Sometimes that kind of crap actually fixes things with Windows. Why? Often it's incredibly hard to say why, but unfortunately it's pretty much a black box. Diagnosing problems with a black box is pretty damn difficult.

    --

    Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
    Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
  120. anonymous email accounts by s20451 · · Score: 1

    Worst case, it would take anyone with half a clue and subpoena(sp?) power about a day to find out where the email really came from, if that.

    Easy ... don't send it from either your work or home PC. Go to a busy internet cafe or public library and send it from a public terminal (making sure that nobody is looking over your shoulder).

    I have often wondered how many Hotmail or Yahoo accounts are created and used just once to send an anonymous e-mail.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  121. Due Process be damned by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
    Why does it matter who found the evidence?
    Funny, that's the same mentality that permeated Nazi Germany and later post-WWII East Germany. That's when people "disappeared" based upon rumors from their paranoid, gossipy neighbors.

    If that's the kind of society you want to live in, why don't you move to... um... er... America!

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Due Process be damned by CaseyB · · Score: 1
      What part of hard evidence, not mere accusation got stuck on the way into your thick skull?

      If I call the police to tell them that I can see my neighbor burying his dismembered wife in his backyard, why is it important that he be able to face me in a courtroom at the murder trial?

    2. Re:Due Process be damned by dago · · Score: 1

      police come the day after, found the wife.
      And he says that you buryed his wife and called the police to cover you.

      Of course, in this case (which is a poor analogy) there should be some other hard facts. But when it's about a sysadmin repairing another persons' workstation, then anyone of the two could have put the pictures there.

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
  122. **Totaly OffTopic** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was fixing a lusers computer when I came across sixpack.jpg, I figured that it was a picture of a sixer of beer but when I clicked on it it showed a picture of some naked guy flexing his stomach muscles with his big fat cock standing erect! I pretended that I didn't see it but I will never look at the guy who uses that computer in the same way again! For what it's worth that guy is married (to a woman) and has two HOT daughters.

    1. Re:**Totaly OffTopic** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hope that the fact that he has two hot daughters would have nothing to do with whether he looks at porn...ecch...

  123. So that's who... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're the filthy jerk who has been ratting on our ops to the fuzz.

    You know what, Joe?

    YOU'RE FIRED! And you don't have any way to sue, because the tips were anonymous, and we "didn't know about them."

    Heh.

  124. illegal goodies? by c4thy · · Score: 0

    whats so goodie about kiddie pr0n. you ppl are seriously fucked up in the head.

    --

    i am convinced that "/.ers" are homosexuals and imma make that my "sig"
  125. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by The+Dobber · · Score: 1


    A special someone? Boy, I bet that gets the chicks.

  126. Enron: Re:Chain of command bullshit by darkonc · · Score: 2, Informative
    Just yesterday, CBC Radio had an interview with the Enron executive who blew the whistle. She says that she found out, after the fact, that the first thing that the Enron Higher-ups did when she first wrote her letter to the CEO about the oddities she was seeing was to look at what would happen if they fired her. Their conclusion, in this case: If she sued them for wrongful dismissal, the details of the accounting fraud would come out in court and the whole thing would just blow up in their face.

    They didn't keep her on because she did something vaguely assoicated with the right thing.. They kept her on because firing her would make it harder to keep the mess covered up. She did not have a very encouraging estimate of the half-life of your average whistle-blower.

    The US Government has (or, at least, had) very elaborate procedures in place to protect whistle-blowers from retalation. I don't know if those are still in place, but that's really the only way that an employee can be sure that blowing the whistle won't result in a blown job.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    1. Re:Enron: Re:Chain of command bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The US Government has (or, at least, had) very elaborate procedures in place to protect whistle-blowers from retalation.

      Yea, and take a look at how its worked. not.

      Say you keep your job, does the US manage your career there forever more? No.

      Fact is the Corporations are the government, so don't expect alot of help from the people you elect.

    2. Re:Enron: Re:Chain of command bullshit by Piquan · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the whistleblower laws only apply to somebody blowing the whistle on companies cheating the gov't.

  127. Must be flamebait by OffTheRack · · Score: 1

    I would think no one coherent enough to write the above comment is brain damaged enough believe it. It must be flaimebait.

    The poster is not only suggesting that the company machines are nobody's business but the users', he is also suggesting that when you see a crime you should not report it!

    This is the kind of person that sees nothing no matter what. The short name for such a person is coward.

    1. Re:Must be flamebait by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      he is also suggesting that when you see a crime you should not report it!

      The cops must love you down at the local station house, the way you come in there dutifully to sear out a complaint each time you see someone jaywalk.

      A free society, practically by definition, in no way imposes the obligation of ratting out other citizens to the authorities.

      Or, to put it another way, read "The Diary of Anne Frank" and then tell me who's the coward.

  128. WTF? by kotj.mf · · Score: 1
    The most amazing part of this story is that there are still people who think it's safe to look at porn, let alone child porn, while at work.

    I've got an uncle in fucking IT who was busted pulling kiddie stuff off Usenet at work. Since it was only maybe a half-dozen illegal pictures, and he's such an "upstanding" "Christian" (read: virulently conservative Catholic asshole), he got off with probation and getting shitcanned. If it weren't for the fact that his wife and kids would suffer, I would have liked to see him locked up. Fucker.

    Anyway, telling the boss is a courtesy, but telling the Law is a responsibility. I'm not gonna be party to the crime by helping to cover it up.

    --
    hang brain.
  129. plan by falsification · · Score: 1
    Fortunately, I never had to face this back when I was doing the sys admin thing. Here's what I would have done, however.

    1. Lock the employee out of his files. Hopefully you can do that remotely, like disabling his account. If the files are on his hard drive, you may have to take more drastic action, such as taking his computer away for "routine maintenance." Put the computer in a closet, keep it unhooked, and make sure the door is locked.
    2. One thing you don't want is for the cops to think that you were somehow in on it. Thus, it would be good to tell a trusted friend somewhere in the company about what you're doing. Document everything. Keep notes. If at any time you believe you need legal advice, go to talk to your corporate lawyer. If necessary, call him. Even at home. It's that serious. If you can't get through to anyone, and you need a lawyer, open up the Yellow Pages and pick one.
    3. Go to your supervisor. Tell him what you found. Don't tell him which employee it is yet. Wait until you see whether your supervisor is going to do the right thing. If they're going to try to cover it up, or not call the cops, then go to the next higher level of supervisors. If you can't find anyone, you should call the cops yourself. If your supervisor isn't in the office, call him at home. It's that serious.
    4. Eventually the cops show up, you show them the files, and the bad guy gets arrested.
    5. If your supervisor is pissed at you for rooting out a child porn slimeball, then you either have a creep for a supervisor or you are really, really, really working at the wrong company.

    I'm sure not a lawyer, so you shouldn't take any of this as professional legal advice.

  130. the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer is of course blackmail.

  131. This is much more complicated.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When I was working at $BIG_PHARMA, we had a situation where there was a lab with several guys working in it, and one woman. The guys would surf pr0n at the shared computer in the middle of the lab and send it to the color laser printer so they could take it home or whatever. Since it was a shared computer, nobody could be pinned for it.

    One day, they forgot to take the pr0n off the printer, and the woman lab scientist came in and saw it, and was disgusted. She reported it immediately. The system was seized, and the bookmarks, cache, etc. were aggresively scanned. The security folks now knew the times and dates that the pr0n was seen, and could nail it down to two of the male employees.

    As a precautionary measure, they started looking at the network traffic and logs to the sites where the pr0n had been viewed and printed. What they found was HUNDREDS of other machines on the network who were going to the same sites, viewing the same content, and some of them were very-high-up PhD scientist workstations.

    So what do you do? Bust the guys who printed it, and got caught? Or nail everyone for going to the same sites, viewing the same content, on company machines? It can get into some very ugly legal tangles, wrongful prosecution, etc.

    I'm not sure what the end-result was, but I know $BIG_PHARMA now aggressively scans mail and other traffic, and quarantines anything that they deem "inappropriate". In fact, my email address with the user of 'hacker' never makes it in to my friends inside, and is never seen again (nor do I get a reject on the outside), but when I change it to another name, it goes straight through.

  132. Parent is Insightful by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    Thank you for avoiding yet another knee-jerk response.

  133. Here's a though experiment by DrSkwid · · Score: 1, Interesting

    what if ...

    I take pictures of myself when I'm 13 doing all sorts of sex acts.

    I'm now 21.

    1. Am I allowed to even keep the pictures I took of myself?
    2. Can I sell copies of them?
    3. What if I was making out with my twin. Could we have each other arrested for having a copy?

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:Here's a though experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take pictures of myself when I'm 13 doing all sorts of sex acts. I'm now 21.

      1. Am I allowed to even keep the pictures I took of myself?
      2. Can I sell copies of them?
      3. What if I was making out with my twin. Could we have each other arrested for having a copy?


      In the U.S.:
      1. No. You're considered a child pornographer and will be prosecuted.
      2. No. You're considered a child pornographer and distributor and will be prosecuted.
      3. Yes. Each of you can have the other arrested, as you are both child pornographers.

      Please note that "the law" and "common sense" have very little in common with each other.

    2. Re:Here's a though experiment by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Let's get rid of the hypothetical. If I wasn't a nice guy who returns such things at the end of a relationship, I could have a half-dozen (albeit really badly done) pictures (I guess early 90's photo-hut guys let this stuff through, at least down there) of a 14 year old masturbating in the bathroom at a resort in Puerto Rico.

      As far as I know, it was illegal for me to have those pictures, even then. For that matter, I don't see why it wasn't illegal for her to have taken them of herself in the first place. I doubt either of us would've been prosecuted, but is there really any exeption made in the laws against child porn for kids having, or having taken, the pictures? Actually, chances are our parents probably would've been the ones fucked over if the developers or somebody had reported it.

      Trying to regulate sex always ends up like this. It's such an incredibly subjective topic that any regulation is eventually going to end up moronic. Is a blow job sex? Is a naked kid in an animal-print blanket furry-kiddie-porn? Are you an idiot to say that you like gay people as long as they don't touch each other? Is nodding your head to the radio close enough to dancing to be sexual harassment? Should I just cut of my balls with a weed-whacker now and be done with it?

    3. Re:Here's a though experiment by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      Depends where you live. In many places, as long as only you looked at the pictures and you never distributed them it would be ok to keep them.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    4. Re:Here's a though experiment by QuickSilver_999 · · Score: 1

      I AM NOT A LAWYER!

      Layman's view in Pennsylvania?

      1. Am I allowed to even keep the pictures I took of myself?

      No, it is a felony of the third degree

      2. Can I sell copies of them?

      HELL NO! Felony of the third degree.

      3. What if I was making out with my twin. Could we have each other arrested for having a copy?

      Yes. Further, whichever twin took the pictures could be subject to other action. Not sure how that would work, since it would involve Juvenile offenses... Hmmm... Interesting one.

      This is based off a layman's reading of PA Crimes Code Title 18, Chapter 63 - Minors, Section 6312 (a)(b)(c)(d). The version I'm citing is from the Legislative year 2000, through Act 142. Of course, with a good lawyer you would probably get acquitted of 1, and possibly 3, but I think you would still end up in jail on #2.

      Nice to have friends in law enforcement that give you the old copies of their manuals when they get the new ones, eh?

      --
      - No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
  134. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I've always found it boring, cheezy, and fairly degrading toward women. What's the big deal?


    Most people are, to some extent, voyeurs. You are obviously not. Plus you probably have a lower sex drive than most. I also wouldn't be surprised if you held some rather unhealthy views about sex but that is just pure speculation.

  135. what would be bad? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    society has decided that somone under 16 can't consent therefore they can't "have no objection".

    Adult : "Can I tattoo your face?"
    Child : "Sure, go right ahead"

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:what would be bad? by schnits0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not give people the ability to consent for themselves. It's dumb. When I was 12 I knew my opinions about a lot of things. I work with 12 year olds on a weekly basis. All of them could concent to a lot of things. I used to babysit a 4 year old. She had the mental capacity to say what she wanted and didn't want. So saying a child shouldn't be allowed to concent should be a crime. supression of rights.

    2. Re:what would be bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Society -- ANY society -- only recognizes the rights of those people it is forced to recognize. That force can be political, moral, or physical.

      Children will only have rights that are respected by western civilizations when they grab enough guns and revolt for those rights. The problem is, by the time most of them figure this out they're already adults.

    3. Re:what would be bad? by JJahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No shit it should be a crime to supress childrens rights. Can't vote till your 18, but you can work and amazingly enough you still have to pay taxes. But you have no control whatsoever of where that money goes (voting). Thats just one of the many injustices in the current legal system today.

    4. Re:what would be bad? by QuickSilver_999 · · Score: 1

      It frightens me that you work with children on a regular basis.

      There is actually a definition involved when it comes to consent. It's called "Informed Consent." A four year old is not mentally capable of giving informed consent for sex, simply because the mind of an average 4 year old cannot process the information involved. Same thing with the 12 year old.

      Always remember that laws are in place to protect the AVERAGE citizen. Yes, this discriminates against the 4 year old super genius that has a college degree, but it also protects the AVERAGE 4 year old.

      --
      - No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
  136. Re:Too many crooks, bozos, psychos in companies by GrassyKnowl · · Score: 1

    There are too many crooks, bozos, and psychos in corporate management and in the "chain of command". Those incompetent fools look after their own and they will manufacture ways to get rid of the whistleblower.

    The employees did the right thing by going to the cops.

  137. Interesting Moral Dilemma by TheSmokingMan666 · · Score: 1

    I think you'd follow whatever company policy is in place first and foremost. Let them deal with it. Some companies still do what is right and involve law enforcement, some don't. After you've tried it the company's way and you're clear of their policies you can do whatever you want as a "concerned citizen" there's usually someone out there who could use the information you have to offer, even if its anonymous

  138. Is this a Sunday School question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You make it sound like there would be no question about the right thing to do except that it might cost you your job. How does losing your job change the right or wrong nature of your decision?

    If you lose your job, you go get another job. Hopefully a job that makes you feel good about yourself and what you do.

  139. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    memboers of respectable churches abandon their faith and families simply to feed their porn addiction

    Over the last day or so I have noticed all kinds of posts that you've made that seem to indicate that you are either:

    A: Some kind of Rush Limbauesque Jerry Falwell god rot nazi -or-

    B: Perhaps far more likely you are just a troll who doesn't realy believe the crap he is posting but is just, well, trolling.

  140. Misusing the file server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see your point regarding respecting the privacy of employees' hard drives. However, I think it's a different storey when you're talking about a shared file server. Not that it was in the linked article, but it was in the example I'm about to give.

    Once upon a time, the sysadmin went to do a routine cleanup of the file server. Since it's a shared resource, he gives people a hard time if they take up too much space for a long period of time. One person who was taking up about a quarter of the available space kept ignoring his emails. Well, he found out through someone who doesn't work with us that this employee was running a porn site featuring said employee. Interestingly enough, the IP addresses of those images was a machine at the place of employment. Turns out, that employee was using the file server to store the pics for their porn site!

    Because this employee was the only one involved in the site, the sysadmin sent a discreet email letting them know he knew what was going on, and the employee finally deleted all the stuff.

  141. Payback by porkface · · Score: 1

    I've never had a company treat me well enough to make it worth my while to protect a pedo.

    Yet while I didn't work IT, the IT folk apparently were treated well enough, because while they told me who and roughly what they found, they never spoke up. And I never had hard evidence for me to make such a strong claim.

    So the lesson is, pay your IT people well, because odds are you have a pedo in your ranks, and I guarantee they prefer using the T-1 to their home dial-up.

  142. I got one thats easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep a stash of stuff somewhere, and when they can you, just report it to the BSA

    I JUST got done doing that to my old employer just now!

  143. Agreed.. article's a bit biased by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

    The article mentioned in passing that the firing might have also been retalitory for a previous law suit one of the employees filed against their company. There was also a bit in there about the employee being cited for being combative.

    Filtering out all of the bias there and here, I'm more inclined to believe the company had legitimate reasons to put one or both of these folks on probation and to dismiss them, but I don't have all of the facts either, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions.

    1. Re:Agreed.. article's a bit biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, that covers Perry, why did Gross get the sack as well?

    2. Re:Agreed.. article's a bit biased by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      Insufficient information. That's the point. All you have to go on is the information in this article.

  144. The point of going to HR by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    You should go to HR first. Plain and simple. However, I also realize that this is a very complex situation and at some point you have to trust things.

    1: By going to HR you are opening the crime scene up to possible contamination if the word gets back to the employee. But

    2: If the employer does not know what is happening this makes things *very uncomfortable* for them. In general, you do not want to compound the crime my bringing the media down on your employer without giving them fair warning....

    So, the problem is hard. I still say talk to HR unless you have compelling reason not to. Tell them you have to go to the police and suggest that they start coordinating the PR response.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  145. Fired for doing what's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I understand fully what these two people are going through, I too was fired for, what I believed to be, the right thing to do.

    This issue takes place about 10 or 11 years ago, I worked for a hardware manufacturer, back in the early days of the internet. The company had wanted to put up a tech support BBS, I had experience with this, so they asked me to do it, but limited me to the software used, which was crap. Well, to cut it short, it was up for several months until it crashed and we lost user data.

    I posted a small note from the Admin asking users to reenter their data and apologized for the inconvenience, which I believed to be the professional and right thing to do. A trade rag caught wind of it, and posted a little blurb about it. The company was a tape backup company and the article was felt by the company to have given them a black eye.

    I was removed from the BBS project, put on probabtion, and then investigated, my desk rummaged through, my workstation examined, etc. Finding nothing, I was later interviewed for one thing or another by managers, then fired on trumped up and false charges of inappropriate behavior, tardiness (I was never late a day I worked there and up to that point had never taken a sick or personal day). I was hauled down to HR, shown a huge stack of pink slips (all without my signature or a note that I'd read them), and fired that day. Up until then my reviews had been perfect, my attendance at work had been reported as perfect, my knowledge level for the job was impecable, my skill was exemplary.

    I spoke with a lawyer who told me at that time, there was nothing I could do, the company can produce all the evidence they wanted to prove their case, including providing dated and signed material which can be backdated, and I had nothing, no witnesses and no documentation to prove my case, I was advised to drop it and move on, so I did.

    Personally, I believe what happened to these two people, I know from experience what companies will do in cases like this, and I know it's going to be a hard road ahead for them.

    1. Re:Fired for doing what's right by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

      Since you never litigated, and there's nothing either of you can do, no harm in naming the scum. What company?

    2. Re:Fired for doing what's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't matter, they're now out of business.

  146. Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprising the number of corporate shills we have here.

    You find that shit? You call the cops. Fuck the company bullshit, the only thing they give a shit about is their worthless image and the fucking bottom line.

    Let them fire you. If they do, you're better off somewhere else that RESPECTS upstanding citizens and THE LAW.

  147. Re:Illegal things... [In response] by etymxris · · Score: 1

    Yes, I read the acticle. And just because rifling through all the data is easy to do, and might yield useful information, is not a reason to do it. Take a plumber who is rifling through your personal receipts. He wants to see how the person who worked on the toilet before him tried to fix it. Is this useful information? Yes. Does it justify going through personal documents? No.

    And just because a company can look at all your personal stuff on a company computer, doesn't mean that they should. I work many hours a day--I'm at work practically all my free time. To ask me to have no personal information on any work computers is basically asking me not to have a personal life. But this is too much to ask.

    Other people have dealt within this discussion the justification of actually looking digging deep into his personal folders. Rather than reiterating their points, you can consult them yourselves.

  148. Yeah, sure. by Saint+Mitchell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My favorite part of the article:

    But as criminally disturbing and emotional as this issue may be, the pending litigation has nothing to do with the professor. Employment of the technicians ended due to issues completely unrelated to this isolated incident, which will become clear as the case progresses through the legal system. Claims made by the plaintiffs cannot be taken at face value and should not be trumpeted as fact via media when they are based solely on unsubstantiated allegations.

    Translation: Yeah, we fired them for that, but we didn't think they'd sue us. We'll just say we have evidence that will appear in court. We'll pull a tardy report from a few months ago, bam, permission to fire them. Never mind that the guy they told on was a golf buddy of mine and asked me to get rid of them as revenge.

    Do corps do this kind of thing? You'd better believe it. I used to work for a utility as the network admin. They would come to me and ask for me to find "evidence" for them to fire someone. Usually all that took was a weblog or a copy of an email of them doing something against company policy. I hated doing it, but it would have been my job if I said no. The reason they tell you you are fired is never the real reason.

    1. Re:Yeah, sure. by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      No shit. I work as a general techie/sysadmin for a bunch of people, and one day one of our clients asked us to search the internet archives of a particular user so the boss could have decent evidence to get away with firing him. Nothing at all to do with the fact that his recruitment agency wanted their fee from this particular boss.

      So, we do our search, find a truckload of webpages about their profession, hotmails, travel agents and job vacancies (ha!). Nothing damning at all, so the boss goes off in a huff knowing he'll have to invent some other excuse.

      As a result of this, we made a script that will copy a load of "relevant" stuff into the internet cache, and delete all the old stuff (after we've checked it, obvisously). We don't go snooping on purpose, but if we ever discovered anything highly illegal a la child pron, we'd be legally and morally obliged to go straight to the police.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
  149. It depends... by osguru · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am a network admin. when I find porno on someone's machine what I do about really depends on whether you are a dick or not.

    As far as child porn goes I can see how the company would fire the admin who called the cops. The company is just pissed the admin didn't go through them first... so he was maken an example of.

  150. Re:Even Senior VP's get fired for blowing the whis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got to be a Senior VP and hadn't realized that you don't fuck your CEO?

    I find that very difficult to believe.

  151. Thumbnails and Browsers by billstewart · · Score: 1
    You've been away from Windows too long (or pleasantly long enough, depending on your viewpoint :-)


    The standard Windows file manager in recent Windows versions will show you little icons for files indicating what type they are, but you can also set it to show thumbnails of pictures, or big icons, or other kinds of views. And you can customize the view on a per-directory basis, so you can look at your source code directories as a list of filenames, and your My Pictures directory as thumbnails.

    So this wasn't someone who'd right-click-saved thumbnails of pictures and not the full-sized pictures, this was the Windows file browser showing thumbnails of whatever-sized pictures had been saved.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  152. Re:If you discover illegal goodies on a machine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I bet you have the physique to do it, too. Nice reactionary drivel.

  153. They told their boss, who reported it to the cops by billstewart · · Score: 3, Interesting
    According to both articles, the two sysadmins reported the files to their supervisor, who reported it to the police. Sounds like they followed policy. The only uncertainty about that that I see in the article is that one of the sysadmins reported it to the other before they went to the supervisor, but depending on the work environment that's a pretty typical thing to expect.

    The company's article says that there are other things going on, which they can't talk about because there's a lawsuit pending. If that's not true, and they're really doing it because they're embarassed about it being reported to the police, then they should presumably have also fired the supervisor who reported it. Sounds like there are multiple sets of ugliness and stupidity going on here...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  154. How to deal with Child Pornography by Badanov · · Score: 1

    cd /../CHILDPORNGUYs.porn.trove.directory ls -al >> ../adminsdirectory/CHILDPORNGUYlog.txt chown root:root *.* >> ../adminsdirectory/CHILDPORNGUY.txt chmod 000 *.* ../adminsdirectory/CHILDPORNGUYlog.txt chattr +i *.* ../adminsdirectory/CHILDPORNGUYlog.txt When CHILDPORNGUY bitches about not being able to get to his files, tell him to take it up with his boss. Now you have a log of your actions, and a log of the files in question. You are protected, and so is your company. Of course, I have no idea what to do if the files are on an NT server.

    --
    Dawn of the Dead
  155. WhistleBlowers are protected by the law by Necroman · · Score: 1

    http://whistleblowerlaws.com/protection.htm
    It is against federal law to fire an employee if that employee called out the company, or an employee of the company for illegal activities.

    If he wanted to go through it, he could take his employeer to work for this.

    --
    Its not what it is, its something else.
  156. Child porn good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think I'd refer to child porn as illegal "goodies".

  157. Re:Even Senior VP's get fired for blowing the whis by theolein · · Score: 1

    If you're being blacklisted then you might as well phone the BSA anonymously and report your company. A little bit of revenge that they cannot prove was done by you is ok if you're already in shit street.

  158. Reported a find to no effect... by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    When contracted to the Ontario Ministry of Health for Y2K upgrading (replacing about 5000 machines), a routine backup of one of the managers of Institutional Health branch showed some rather large non-routine files being copied.

    He'd put his collection of bestiality porn, and other stuff that may have been worse by the titles (I didn't have the stomach to browse it all) in a subdirectory nested deep inside his working files.

    After reporting my find, not one thing was done or said to this guy as far as I know. And he still kept getting his fat government paycheck to surf doggie porn.

    Maybe one of the raises I got in that time period was intended to keep my mouth shut. I quit shortly afterwards so I don't know.

  159. Interesting to note... by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

    I'm not seeing many post to indicate that anyone read the second article. It presents quite a different picture, one that I'm inclined to believe. From the second link mentioned in the story:

    The two plaintiffs [suwain_2 note: the two fired IT guys] were commended by both Collegis and the law school in their handling of the situation.

    Employment of the technicians ended due to issues completely unrelated to this isolated incident....

    Of course they wouldn't come out and admit to firing them for making the company (college, actually; everyone keeps saying company) look bad, but I'm inclined to believe them that the firing (or whatever it was) was completely unrelated to this.

    It's kinda like a police officer who shows up late to work every day, and rarely does anything but 'guard' Dunkin Donuts. One day, he catches one of the FBI's Most Wanted. The next day, however, he's fired for always being late to work and rarely even doing his job. Interesting timing, but it's not necessarily correct to claim that he was fired for making the city look bad by catching the criminal in *their* city and not a neighboring one.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  160. Re:Chain of command bullshit by pod · · Score: 1

    No, but if i see him downloading or watching child porn, I'm likely to call the cops. It's a matter of degree, nothing is black and white, and you have to exercise a bit of judgement.

    --
    "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
  161. Be very creful by theolein · · Score: 1

    As some of the wiser people have pointed out here, this can backfire on you badly if you talk directly to the cops without informing your boss. It's a shit situation but child pornography is inhuman (it happened to a member of my family) and the people who perpetrate this deserve to get punished.

    However the wish to see justice done shouldn't overcome your need to stay employed, or at least to have a good source of money. You need to eat.

    My boss regularly browses porn at 6AM in the morning and I don't do anything about it as long as it's not child porn. I do however make private backups of the logs in case I ever get fired so that I can get some nice financial rewards on being fired and can cover my butt in ensuing legal action.

  162. employee or wage slave by technoCon · · Score: 1

    ok, let's consider two scenarios:

    1) i'm a wage slave. every week i need my paycheck to maintain my lifestyle and pay my debts. in this case, my employer controls my way of life. i must do everything i can do to maintain/advance my relationship with my employer.

    2) i'm an employee. i live well below my means and save the surplus. if i lose my job, i can go months if not years without replacing it. i do everything i can to maintain/advance my financial integrity. bonus points for personal integrity, too.

    Now, let's suppose my employer is brewing anthrax spores in the break room. What do I do?

    #1, keep very quiet and make your boss think you're a true believer, too.

    #2, remember those bonus points for personal integrity and call Inspector Friendly of the FBI.

    Lots of people distort the relationship with employers because they have wrong ideas about employment. Your paycheck isn't a trust-fund disbursement (sorry Bertie Wooster), and it isn't an allowance from your dad, and it isn't a welfare check. It's an artifact of your relationship with your employer and your productivity on his behalf.

    The One Thing I most regret in my twenty years of bumming code is the time I worked for a bunch of Nazis. (7/9ths of the company's name was Rapist. I kid you not.) Had I had more personal integrity I would have left them much earlier.

  163. Corporate != University by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1

    Universities have Human Resource departments with power over tenured professors?

    1. Re:Corporate != University by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Universities have Human Resource departments with power over tenured professors?

      They have HR departments, but the HR department will likely have lots of connections and may be useful nonetheless as well as a cya menuver.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  164. Tell the Employer first by Hairy1 · · Score: 1

    A few years ago I found out that a manager was viewing and copying pornographic pictures to his hard drive. He actually asked me whether files were "really" deleted when he deletes them from Windows explorer. Little did he know that all his web surfing was logged anyway, so it really didn't matter what he did on his local drive, we still had evidence of his habit.

    I was actually concerned at the time that his habit was actually impacting on the business, as at the time we had only a single dial in line, and his web surfing was slowing down email and other company communications.

    I cut off his access to the web, and when he asked for reinstatement I refused. This pissed him off a bit, but he could hardly take it higher without me revealing to higher management *why* had taken the action.

    In the case of Child Porn I think that it should be taken up with senior management first. Senior management will probably then fire their ass and report it to the police themselves. This way they get to look morally rightous, and get good PR.

    If you tell the Police without first telling management you havn't given management the opportunity to deal with the internal issues. If management attempt to cover it up and continue employment of the offender then perhaps you have justification to go to the Police directly.

    Just my opnion...

  165. Falacious conclusion #1 by poptones · · Score: 1
    child porn is a pernicious offense and offenders should be pubished. you think he jsut say, gee thanks, i won't do that any more. look at the research on child molestors. they are habitual. they cannot be "cured".

    Collecting photographs of kids (naked or clothed) != child molestor.

    I realize this difference is hard to remember when you have been brainwashed by the bible thumping, name calling, press peddlers - but it is, nonetheless, a critically important distinction. Quite a lot of material that is now illegal in this country can be bought on the street in many others - and could here, as well, before Meese and Reagan began their campaign of puritanism. Thanks to those wonderful 80's, The Oscar-nominated Pretty Baby couldn't even be made (in the US) today; you could now be arrested for having copies of Penthouse you bought in the 70's and 80's... just a couple more shining examples of modern life in the "Land of the Free."

    hell, if i'd found the stuff on his computer, i'd probably just take the guy out back and beat him fucking senseless.

    Et Tu, Quoque?

  166. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume you mean a machine other than my own :)

  167. Who do you call? Ges-ta-po! (flamebait) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yah, lets call the cops on everyone we don't like - be it their sexual preferences (and, no, I don't want to defend pedophiles - but this does happen to others too - and maybe you should get your head out of your commodius goatse butthole and read about the innocent people who get accused of possessing child porn for having taken pictures of their own children nude), their look (too Arab for you?), or whatever.

    And, of course, we all trust the Gestapo to get the right answers out of them - after all they can be easily (um) persuaded to tell the truth. Just a bit of torture, thats all. Or threats of multi-year criminal prosecution - the innocent should never be concerned, after all, everyone can easily afford those $500/hour lawyers to protect themselves.

    And those constitutional rights? They don't matter to you so obviously they should just be discarded for everyone.

    Perhaps you need to be accused of something fun and given the chance to truly enjoy the process. Perhaps a bit of time in jail with a large horny cellmate would help a bit.

  168. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    Hrm. I'd rather look at ass and legs. The real kicker for me though is if the woman has some sort of odd colored hair.. blue, pink, purple, green, etc. Especially if the drapes match the carpet. Girls that look like they stepped out of anime. I guess at least that's a healthier fantasy than being into children. ;)

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  169. What happened to privacy and freedom of thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In most civilized countries, owning child porn is not a crime. Producing it is a crime, distributing it to others is a crime, but something that you own on a piece of photgraphic paper or on a CD has basically the same status as something you own inside your mind. Charging and convicting people based on magazines or CDs they own is like saying "we'd convict them for their thoughs, if only we could find out what they are".

    Now, having said that, obviously, if you find something that leads you to believe that a person may have commited a crime, or may be planning to commit a crime (and this applies not only to child porn but also to other kinds of porn, bank blueprints, plans for a bomb, etc.), it's your duty as a member of society to do what you can to prevent that crime, or help the course of justice.

    Replace "child porn" with "illegal MP3" (or something else that someone is likely to find in your computer) and run this story through your CPU again. If your conclusion is different, you probably have a parity error somewhere. That doesn't make your CPU useless, but it does make it a bit less reliable.

    Personally I don't think child porn should be treated any differently from adult porn. Lots of people (especially women, but also some men) in adult pornography are being exploited and abused, and no-one seems to care. The law should protect people regardless of their age, instead of taking the easy way out, drawing on people's emotions to support bans on child porn and washng its hands of adult exploitation with the excuse that "they're over 18 so it's nobody else's business". Hiding something does not make it go away. Making something illegal does not make it go away. People have tried it with alcohol and drugs and many other things and it just doesn't work. What society needs is objective, practical legislation, not emotional, radical bans on whatever happens to be the "evil" of the day.

  170. Whistleblowing 101 by stanwirth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you've stumbled across evidence of substantial and systematic bilking, theft, fraud, etc. in a corporate database on an utterly massive scale... remember, fish rots from the head down. Going up your chain of command is what you have to do, but do expect severe and immediate retaliation.

    Just them knowing that you know what they've been up to, by your routine data QA, is enough to cause sudden complaints about your "behaviour." Remember, it takes two to tango, but only one to squirm . Their complaints are evidence that they're starting to squirm. You need a plan now.

    When the going gets tough, the tough take notes . Keep copies of things. You you are going to need a well-planned and pre-established "exit strategy", because you will be punished for doing the right thing.

    While "Retaliation for Opposition to An Unlawful Practice" is illegal, it will take you 3-5 years to prosecute your retaliation case, while also giving testimony in the civil and criminal cases the FBI or Serious Fraud Office is going to be bringing against them. You are going to need one heck of a safety net.

    So your order of business is:

    1. Detect Evidence
    2. Discuss with Spouse, Family, Religious Leaders
    3. Document Evidence
    4. Find out whose the best lawyer in the State, if not the Land for handling your case
    5. Copy Evidence,place under lock and key
    6. Find another job, sell excess assets, cash in annuities
    7. Report Evidence up Chain of Command
    8. Enjoy Watching them Squirm!
    9. Resign at the worst possible time for them
    10. Provide Your Evidence to The Authorities
    11. Going to the Press is a last resort
    You have to discuss this with your spouse and grown children as soon as you even have suspicions, so that you can plan your exit strategy together. They have to understand that you all might be a lot happier in the Peace Corps or setting up wireless networks in Africa, or living on a high-school teachers' salary or grad student stipend. If you belong to a church, mosque or synagogue, discuss it with your pastor, priest, imam, rabbi-- because, God help you, you will need serious moral support when the poo hits the ventillation system.

    When you must report criminal wrongdoing expect to get canned--for "other reasons" of course. You will be surprised at how lame a case they'll be willing to make for those "other reasons." So will the judge.

    Child pornography is criminal wrongdoing. Bilking legitimate shareholders of millions of dollars a month is criminal wrongdoing. A utility defrauding half a nation to the point that its factories are closing, its schools are cold and dark, and its hospitals have to turn away sick children is criminal wrongdoing.

  171. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [ Also, I have a date tonight. With your mom. ]

    You've a date with my mom?? That two-timing slut!!

  172. The world that "It's not my problem "built. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Everybody knows that as soon as you place yourself at the scene of a crime, you become a suspect. My friends and I learned this when we called the police after seeing some kids set fire to a pallet of cardboard boxes behind a Wal-Mart. Guess who got grilled the hardest? Yup.

    You see something wrong? I'll tell you what you do. Walk away. It's either that, or get yourself involved and substantially raise the chances that something negative will happen to you."

    Well I guess we know why the world is the way it is. Over a billion people on the planet, all walking away. If doing the right thing was easy then the world wouldn't be in the shape it's in presently. Well as the saying goes "Evil prospers when good men do nothing." Keep that formost in your thoughts, while your rights and privilages continue to evaporate, because sooner or later "something negative" is going to come for you, no matter how fast or in what direction you run. And your cries of "I'm an innocent" will fall on unsympathetic ears for sympathy long ago died under the boots of apathy. I hope you enjoy your stay in the world that you and like minded helped build.

    1. Re:The world that "It's not my problem "built. by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      "Well I guess we know why the world is the way it is. Over a billion people on the planet, all walking away. If doing the right thing was easy then the world wouldn't be in the shape it's in presently. Well as the saying goes "Evil prospers when good men do nothing."

      Well obviously you should help if someone is getting beaten up or mugged or stabbed or having a heart attack, etc. But let someone else fight the victimless crimes.

  173. I'd take it to the employer first ... by JoeGee · · Score: 1

    ... with the idea that they will be the ones reporting it (if you're the IT person they'll most likely ask for your assistance.) You let them know the seriousness of the crime, and make it clear that they must act. If they don't, then you take matters into your own hands, but one of the best reasons for going to your employer first is that the chancers are good that they already have an attorney or two on retainer. Besides which, the company, and the policies are under their control, not yours.

    On the other hand, if you are the employer then you make certain you protect yourself in advance by having clearly-written lawyer-vetted policies in place for everything from fair company resource use (including the company network) to employee conduct, and procedures for filing a grievance if another employee is messing up. If there's a comprehensive, well-written policy then there's no question, the employee would know how to handle any situation.

    --

    Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
  174. How do I know how old they are? by Geekbot · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't do a damn thing. I don't know how old the models are, I don't know if they were edited on photo shop, I don't know if it's really midget porn. Saying anything would seem to make me open to a lot more liability.
    Especially, what if I think I find something, is it my right or job to dig into it and explore further? I'm pretty sure it isn't and would leave me vulnerable there.
    If I don't know for sure, since I didn't dig into it, then what if I reported suspicious, but ultimately, non-illegal materials to a manager or police to check into further? If there wasn't a policy in place saying that is my job, then I've just exposed a coworker to harrassment and ridicule, costing them their job, marriage?, etc. Then I get sued by my coworker and lose my job by getting my company sued also.

    Basically, that's a pretty messed up situation and I'd hope if I was in that position there would be some solid policies in place so that my ass was covered. I think it is a good thing this article came out to point out the catch-22 HelpDesk operators might be in, and start discussions of how to avoid it.

    I'd definitely want policies in place saying what I was allowed to access in ordinary duties, HelpDesk duties and I'd want employees signing a form that they knew what kind of access to files was allowed to the Help Desk.

    Then of course I'd want solid guidelines for what happens should I find something.

  175. you're a fucking dipshit asswipe stupidhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Come on- if some asshole told me that reading /. was workrelated, i'd pity that ignorant fool motherfucker and call 'BULLSHIT, BEEEATCH!
    and you know that if that person worked for me, i'd fire his/her punk bitch ass.

  176. ATTN MODS: Parent Post=50%troll,50%flamebait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  177. You do The Right Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Contact HR, tell the situation. No matter what management has to say, they have to listen.

    Call in a forensics company to take a snapshot image of the suspect computer, (~$AUS200-300 hr) this can be done after hours when the offending child porn artist is blissfully unaware of the actions.

    Most forensics experts are ex-police/ investigators with an understanding how to handle these situations. And if the matter has to be delt with in a court of law, the evidence taken will be admissiable because the way they acquire the images in the first place.

    If the company wants to fire you over being a whistleblower, sue their ass.

    Yes, I work closely with these types of investigators. They deal with aquiring harddisk images from child porn, homicide to industrial espionage.

  178. Report it to police, not your supervisor by semanticgap · · Score: 1

    I think the mistake was reporting to the supervisor. Child porn is a grave crave crime, and it should have been reported to the police directly, not the supervisor or anyone else for that matter. The cops would have maintained the confidentality of the reporter.

    1. Re:Report it to police, not your supervisor by semanticgap · · Score: 1

      I meant "grave crime"... Some day I'll learn to type.

  179. Re:Chain of command bullshit [OT] by thynk · · Score: 1

    So if you see a coworking downloading The Matrix Reloaded, you'd immediately call 911?

    Errr... No. I'd rather tell them not to waste their time since the screener version on the net is pretty lame, and to wait for the DVD screener to slip it's way onto the net. Oh.. I mean downloading copyrighted workes are bad, MmmKay?

    --

    Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
  180. Re:Even Senior VP's get fired for blowing the whis by Loosewire · · Score: 1

    A little bit of revenge that they cannot prove was done by you is ok if you're already in shit street.
    Yes but like a lot of slashdot posters in this article who have been saying of the wrongdoings (was if you theolien who said about your boss downloading porn at 6am or someoen else - bah its 3am here) there is a nice permenant record with your name on it. and lets face it it can be traced back to you - most people use the same online handle for usenet , email accounts, and slashdot some of which will have your real name on.

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  181. What you do is by TerryAtWork · · Score: 1

    you delete the goodies and say nothing because the world is run by mean little cowards.

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
  182. The nature of abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm a regular Slashdot poster, but what I'm going to say is extremely personal, hence the anonymous post. This is a short rant about the nature of child abuse. It may be graphic, so read on at your discretion.

    My father physically and sexually abused me, and took movies of me as well; this happened 30 years ago, but for all I know they may be floating around the net right now. My mother suspected the abuse, but did nothing to prevent it and only stepped in to stop it when he threatened to kill me. I don't have a relationship with either of my parents now.

    I know and can admit that I'm a very screwed up person. I have seen psychiatrists and therapists throughout my life to deal with the very real emotional scars left by this abuse (and all replies stating something to the effect of "get over it" or "stop being so self-involved" will be summarily ignored). I have attempted suicide once. I have met many people who similarly suffered due to child abuse. My best friend is an abuse survivor, who thus far has received no therapy for her trauma.

    Unlike most of the other screwed-up people out there, I am taking the personal responsibility to try to solve my problems. I don't have a problem with saying that it is my parents' fault for the state I'm in, but that it is *my* responsibility to get out of that state. Personal responsibility is not in vogue right now, but I hope that changes.

    Here are some thoughts about abuse, pornography, and trauma.

    1. Viewing sexually explicit images of children indicates a treatable disorder or sickness. Sending someone to prison for possession of child pornography is only slightly more helpful than killing that same person. Samuels (from the article) will go to prison, where he will most likely find no resources to help him with his problem, to help him understand himself why he found those images exciting, and how that kind of thinking is damaging to himself and others. He will leave prison only older but no wiser, and just as likely to desire sexual images of children again. But, probably, a great deal more careful about it.

    2. For nearly all child sex offenders, the issue is totally about control. Not sex, but control. It is about the control of a defenseless individual, and the offender gets sexually excited primarily due to the control, perhaps secondarily due to the child (or not at all). This offender is not that different from someone who beats, controls, or otherwise abuses a spouse for sex (but the trauma is naturally much worse on the child than a spouse).

    3. The laws in the US dealing with child abuse are abominable and out-dated. I'll stop right there with my opinion, and you can check out "Just Before Dawn" by Jan Hindman. It systematically and scientifically investigates the nature of abuse and does away with many of the myths surrounding causes of abuse, types of abuse, and resultant trauma, and points out the problems and gaping holes in our legal system and victim support system that do little to help the victim, the child.

    4. I like porn, probably like many of you. While I am beginning to form what most of you would call "normal" relationships, I have relationships also with several strippers and hookers. I know something about sex workers that many of you don't, or at least aren't thinking about while you're getting off: the overwhelming majority of all porn stars, hookers, and strippers were molested as children. There was a study done several years back (sorry I don't have a reference for it) that reported that out of a few hundred porn stars surveyed, 98% of them reported being sexually abused as a child. I haven't known hundreds, but all the hookers and strippers I have really talked with have told me of their child abuse, most little or no prodding.

    It's funny when you hear Greg Giraldo on "Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn" make a joke about how American society is obsessed with pushing the limits, "how we want to set a land speed record in a car, see how many hot dogs you can eat in

  183. Use the veto files of samba's smb.conf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just veto the storage of the jpeg,gif... on your server.
    here is how
    http://us3.samba.org/samba/docs/man/smb.conf. 5.htm l#VETOFILES

  184. Just what slashdot is all about by donscarletti · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One of the biggest slashdot barrows seems to be that information should be free. If one pirates kiddie pr0n, it is still sick, twisted and perverted. But is is far more morally justifiable, and possibly more legal (I am not sure about that however) than paying for it.

    So, if our P2P file sharing networks get shut down, kiddie pr0n won't be leached for free as much, kiddie pr0n syndicates will get more money, they will abuse more children, and the RIAA will be directly responsible for all of the young girls and boys lives ruined through that industry.

    And to think.... most of us thought Microsoft got dirty money for selling information in sleazy ways.

    P.s. this post was not a joke.... well blaming the RIAA for child pr0n was, but the rest was serious.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  185. Different things I've seen. by Stonent1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I worked at an electronics store and a customer returned a computer for a refund, I checked it out after it was returned and they had templates in there to generate fake proof of insurance certificates for cars. I notified the store loss prevention. They agreed that the person was using the computer for illegal purposes but decided not to contact the police for fear that the customer would sue them for "invasion of privacy". What a bunch of crap. Then a year or so later, I was working on a computer that belonged to a state supreme court judge and it had some pornograpy on it including under-aged porn. We decided not to do anything about it because we figured he might be using it for a court case. My general rule on working on people's home computers is that they all have porn. Just do a search for *.jpg and sort by size. I've never been disappointed when searching.

  186. co...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    copulate with it?

    sodomy with a computer... you are sicker than those you despise.

    hmm... do you find yourself "poking" your monitor after you hit a goatse.cx link?

  187. Simple by mlerner · · Score: 0

    IF you want to risk losing your job over putting a pedophile in jail who will probably never learn from his mistake go ahead If you don't want to loose your job then be quiet about it.

  188. Fucking prior restraint. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, pardner.

  189. Re:The world that "It's not my problem "built.-II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Well obviously you should help if someone is getting beaten up or mugged or stabbed or having a heart attack, etc. But let someone else fight the victimless crimes."

    And there in lies part of the problem. There's an implicit assumption that people are infallible when it comes to predicting what's a "victimless" crime. In the example you gave there is more than one outcome. They could have started a fire that simply burned itself out and no harm. Or they could have started a fire that could have gotten out of hand (for many reasons i.e. it was very windy that day) and could have at least damaged property and inconvienced people, and at worst got out of hand and killed people. The wisest thing naturally would have been not to start the fire in the first place, but since people aren't always noted for doing wise things (like running away from problems). Someone has to be that voice of conscious. Someday you will realize that we all are like pebbles thrown in a pond, ripples spreading out, touching other ripples, constructive, and destructive influence of all sorts everywere. The nature and boundary of our limits are beyound our sight. Someone could read this years from now and be inspired. Just as likely one could read and say "so what?". Keep that in mind when you make that decision of what is and isn't "victimless", and pray that you never have to revisit with a heart tinged with "If only...?"

  190. Meaningless posturing by jasonditz · · Score: 1

    I hope all the IT people here are having fun talking about how they'd stand up to the big bosses and be really brave and fight against the evil felon.

    To me, the right thing to do is have a little talk with Mr. employee about the right and wrong things to have stored on a company computer. Tell him that's not a healthy hobby to begin with, if you like, and tell him in no uncertain terms that if he keeps doing stuff like that on company time you'll have to report him... TO THE COMPANY.

    Oh, and all you people who are equating this to homicide, get off your high horse. This is just data, after all. Undesireable data, granted, but data. Saying the guy with the picture of a kid on his computer is supporting child abusers is the same line of thinking as the "Buying an SUV supports terrorists" argument.

    The definate right place to report this is HR. All you found was a collection of ones and zeros, not a dead body.

    1. Re:Meaningless posturing by buss_error · · Score: 1
      To me, the right thing to do is have a little talk with Mr. employee about the right and wrong

      If that works for you, fine. I work in a Texas School District. If I fail to report a crime involving a child, I go to jail just as fast.

      Reporing child abuse is just the right thing to do. They frown on it if you kill the t*rd yourself.

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    2. Re:Meaningless posturing by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      it doesn't really involve a child though... just an image of a child.

  191. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do however understand that pornography can be interpreted as the celebration of the natural beauty of the female body

    Or the artificial beauty of the work of many cometic surgeons.

  192. you are wrong... by danoatvulaw · · Score: 1

    you are not an accessory after the fact, nor are you liable in ANY event for the simple non-reporting of crime, unless you are under a legal duty to report the same. You are however, liable, should you take ACTIVE steps to conceal that a crime was comitted. It is the active concealing of the crime that makes you liable, and failing to report is not an active event, it is a passive omission. See 18 USCA sec 4 (the annotations), US v Warters 885 F2d 1266 (Tex C.A.5 1989) and US v. Cabrales 118 S.Ct. 1772, 1776 (1998) for the principle that to be an accessory you need to take an active step.

  193. Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone. by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    I fail to see how viewing a picture I obtained for free is harmful to anyone. I didn't PAY anyone to get it, did I? I do think it's repulsive, but it's not destructive, and I think there are MUCH better things we can persecute, like littering and bad traffic etiquette.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  194. Excuse ME! by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    Looking and doing are VERY different. I know a lot of people who look at kiddie porn, but don't molest kids. I'd say they're pretty normal well-adjusted folks too. Human sexuality is VERY restricted in America and I think that the perverts are much BETTER OFF looking rather than doing. Please think about that before you draw a line betwen pictures on a computer and kids in therapy.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  195. The personal approach. by Mulletproof · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wait for that person to leave there desk and leave a nice, polite, unsigned note saying:

    "I know that you have child porn on your computer. You cannot hide it. If I ever EVER find it again YOU SICK FUCK, your ass will be in jail and Bubba will use you as his child porn bitch."

    Something tells me that would go a long way in solving the problem... At work at least.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  196. Should have posted that anonymously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I know a lot of people who look at kiddie porn...
    Citizen: You have committed an error. Please remain on the line until you hear the friendly officer kick on your door.
  197. Sure it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I don't buy this. Are they claiming that standard procedure for these folks, when looking for a virus, is not to boot with a known-good disk and run an up-to-date virus scanner, but rather to go through folders looking for large files which might "be an indication that a virus is at work"?" No, going in from a known-good disk and running a virus scan is fine, FOR A VIRUS. But there's also the possibility of someone who got in with a backdoor hack, installed a file server of some sort, and is/was using the machine as a server to pass warez or other miscellaneous garbage around to his script kiddie friends. I've done this several times -- looked at a machine that is "acting strangely" and the user thinks has a virus, to discover not a virus but the HD virtually full of whatever warez the script kiddies figured they could stuff in there for a quick (and I mean QUICK) download over our connections. The real nice thing is that these particular script kiddies -- most of them frogs (With a capital F for Freedom Frogs, lol) -- were AMAZINGLY CLUELESS about what they were doing. The logs of their FTP server were running, so I got record of every IP that logged in, their usernames and passwords, what files they had accessed. I got the IP address of the one who'd hacked in in the first place, and even the exact time he'd logged in, because he'd actually uploaded a "test.txt" file right off and it was logged. Know how I found where it all was hiding? Wasn't too hard. Ran a windows search for everything over 5MB in size on the HD. Then start looking in the details for abnormal locations on the HD -- they love hiding things in double-hidden folders under /winnt/system32 for some reason. I guess the script kiddies figure the majority of users would never dare start poking around in there. So yeah, it is entirely possible they were poking legitimately. When the article says they were looking for a virus, it's pretty obvious that's not the ONLY thing they were looking for -- what they WERE doing was trying to find out what was causing the system to act abnormally. And in the case of a system that's been compromised with a remote-control backdoor, it can and will be hiding almost anywhere.

  198. My School does the following... by kcb93x · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...And, in fact, we have a new case about once a week, once every 2 if it's slow.

    Here's what we do:

    We find $STUDENT to have images,movies,mp3s whatever on the server (P-90 running Novell 4, 9 GB HD- ancient as heck, but, being SCSI, works okay)

    We then:

    Lock their account (once or twice, we just gave 'read-only' permission- those were funny, we'd get a call saying '$STUDENT' can't save to their folder-says something about permissions? then we explain that $STUDENT did something they shouldn't have, and have been locked out. have them go see asst. principle for more info)

    go talk to principle/assitant principle about it

    for the 'Net, we have a Proxy server running. 'nuff said. logs it for IP and MAC addresses. we get calls from district office (where they have the time to sit and watch traffic go by) and walk in behind the kids some times. tap them on the shoulder, and drag them upstairs.

    we do scan for large files (on our network, that means 500k or more, as each student *should* (should because Mac files don't show up as correct file size on Novell, long story) only have about 5-10 MB of stuff. we don't delete, we just lock down and report. we don't do anything until building administration decides what to do about student.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  199. email it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's kiddie porn and your the admin email a sample from the users machine, with his name attached, to the FBI. I am sure they would like to talk to him about it. You could even include a confession for him. Something like:

    Dear FBI
    I feel so bad about having this kiddie porn, see attached, that I felt I had to turn myself in. I work at XYZ Inc and my home address is. If you have any questions please come by my work and I will show you what I have.

    Thank you
    Joe Loser

  200. One word: by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

    Disgusting. I'd like to see them (the outsourcing co.) back out of this. 2 people involved in a huge smear on the company for busting a child pornography trafficker? Riiiiiiight. They both just HAPPENED to fuck up this close to something this major. Whatever. I happen to think that EVERYONE fucks up on the job, but normally it isn't a big deal. I believe 100% that the company fired them over the smearing, but used legitimate complaints as the reason for dismissal.

    --
    -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
  201. Beware!! by Cybergipsy · · Score: 1

    This actually happened to me (at a State School for the Deaf) I busted a kiddie porn pre-vert six-0clock new - the whole bit... Six weeks later, I was history. Never have regreted it really. It felt REALLY good to catch the freak. Didn't hurt that I immediately started making better money either.

  202. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's harmful to you.

  203. Re:They told their boss, who reported it to the co by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm taking the company's side. :) The quotes from the Plaintiffs made them sound a lot like the kind of people who would accuse their boss of anything if the boss did anything but lick the employee's assholes. Stuff like "We werent' trained by the company to deal with finding child pornography". How the fuck is the company supposed to train them? Further, how are they supposed to train them without getting in trouble themselves?

    I'll bet they were problem employees who didn't exactly handle themselves with maturity throughout this particular ordeal and were terminated WITH CAUSE. I've seen their like before. Fuck 'em all. Darwin in the work force should weed out these people.

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  204. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by ahknight · · Score: 1
    This comes in the realm of several arguments:
    1. "I'm just viewing it, I didn't take the pictures!"
    2. "I got it for free, so no one's making money off me!"
    3. "It's not hurting anyone to just look at them!"
    Viewing the pictures, for profit for not, creates demand. All those fuckers need is demand. Many of them don't do it for money; a lot do it because they're honestly obsessed with naked kids, so saying you're not paying for it is not really an argument. You're one more person that's sharing that dick's experience and one more person egging him on.

    The same goes for pictures "morphed" into something bad, but in a different way. This is not a sign of the morality police, but a way of preventing any kind of brain-food for perverts to get their fix. It's entirely questionable as to if this actually helps at all (some will have their addiction starve off and die, others will go looking harder) but it does have a logical purpose other than enforcing morality.

    The part I can't get over is I'm having to justify legal restrictions on naked children on Slashdot. Has our urge for free speech really gone this far? My God...

  205. Oh it does add up (no privacy at work) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're forgetting the most important facts at play here:

    1) it's not your computer
    2) it's not your house
    3) you have no right to privacy

  206. The real reason they were fired by gizmonic · · Score: 1

    Here is a quote from the article:

    On Sunday, June 2, Perry began to assess problems on the PC used by Samuels, who thought his system might be infected with a virus. For two hours, Perry tried to fix it, uninstalling and reinstalling antivirus software, but the system continued to malfunction. The next day, Perry gave the PC to Gross to back up, fearing it might crash and lose valuable data.

    She spent 2 hours installing and uninstalling and reinstalling anti-virus software? I mean, c'mon here people. I might expect my dad to do something like that if he thought he had a virus. But my dad is not a computer tech. She is supposed to know what the hell she is doing. And then she gives the machine to someone else who decided to look for "large" files?

    But Perry and Gross say it wasn't unusual for them to check the content of folders when troubleshooting; a large file, for example, can be an indication that a virus is at work.

    WTF? Yeah, that's right. My virus scan program didn't find anything. So, my next step? Go looking for "large" files.

    What happened here was that these two idiots managed to get by at their jobs without knowing jack shit, until this case came up. Then, when they had to give an accounting of the steps they were taking to resolve the problem and how they found the illegal material, their ignorance was exposed to management. So, management found reasons to let them go.

    I will give them props for having the balls to report what they found, that is commendable. But based on the troubleshooting as reported, I wouldn't let them anywhere near a computer I had to support.

    --
    WWJD?
    JWRTFM!
  207. Totally irelivent by donscarletti · · Score: 1
    Most girls in underage porn (at least in the worst kind, mid teens is not nearly as imorral) have not developed boobs yet.

    So that makes your boobs argument totally irrelivent! HUH!

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  208. You did just fine. by HTTPeasy · · Score: 1

    No matter what. No matter what. You did the right thing. I have two children - Casey who is 4 and Gavin who is 3. If you discover such, report it!! Don't worry about what "may come" from it. I worked with an enterprise corp. (http://www.corning.com), so I know the pressure. I worked CIS MSE. A similar situation did arise and it was taken care of. Don't worry, the children come first. This is in my eyes and the eyes of the world!!

    --
    Andy Rockwell HTTPeasy.com PHPAudit.com
  209. Cos strongly need whistleblower policies by nileshch · · Score: 1

    ...if they really care about their public face. Like my employer has adopted the Whistleblower provisions listed in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

  210. Re:Even Senior VP's get fired for blowing the whis by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

    Yes but like a lot of slashdot posters in this article who have been saying of the wrongdoings (was if you theolien who said about your boss downloading porn at 6am or someoen else - bah its 3am here) there is a nice permenant record with your name on it. and lets face it it can be traced back to you - most people use the same online handle for usenet , email accounts, and slashdot some of which will have your real name on.

    Not to mention that revenge isn't a good excuse to throw morals out the window. I don't know how you feel personally, but while I would love to avenge myself of my former employer, turning to the BSA is still wrong and I won't do it.

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  211. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The same goes for pictures "morphed" into something bad, but in a different way. This is not a sign of the morality police, but a way of preventing any kind of brain-food for perverts to get their fix. It's entirely questionable as to if this actually helps at all (some will have their addiction starve off and die, others will go looking harder) but it does have a logical purpose other than enforcing morality.

    That's plain bullshit. Child porn laws were passed to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. 'Morphing', as you call it, creates fictitious porn in which no children were harmed in any way whatsoever.

    Personally, I don't understand the mind that finds such things titillating. But I can clearly reason that fictitious porn harms no child, and therefore has no business being prosecuted under child porn laws - since no children were involved in the making of it.

    So you might find it sick and twisted and perverted. That's nice, but no justification for a law when no harm is done. Fact is, I find religion sick, twisted and perverted in *any* form, but I don't go around demanding that laws be passed to prosecute the practitioners. So long as the religious perverts don't go about harming anyone, they can indulge in whatever sordid activities that they want, no matter how disturbing I find personally find them.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  212. as for porn.... by maxpublic · · Score: 1

    Nowadays I can't access my email without getting a half-dozen porn-o-grams a day, complete with pictures and with subject lines like "Traci wants to suck YOUR hard cock!!!"

    No doubt this in and of itself is reason enough to fire me under some of these company policies....

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  213. What these comments say about us by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1
    I have found this whole thread fascinating as a commentary on the current state of our society. While some of the contributions have been well considered, overall people allow themselves to be swayed purely by emotion. We /.ers are supposed to be much more analytical and openminded than the general population. If this is true, it is easy to see how government bodies can manipulate people's emotional reaction to issues like child porn to successfuly push legislation restricting individual freedoms and protections.

    Looking at this case, first some facts:

    (1) There is very little, if any, freely available hard child porn available today on the Internet -- there are lots of photos of twenty-somethings in school uniforms and some sneaked naturist or sports field photos of children. These are distasteful, but scarcely evidence of extensive child molestation.

    (2) There are child porn sites hosted out of Eastern Europe, but I'll bet anyone in the U.S. who signed up for one of these would quickly find themselves visited by the police.

    (3) There are pedophile rings that abuse their own children and distribute records of the abuse to each other (presumably using encrypted e-mail). Occasionally, one of these rings gets cracked. I am sure many others go undetected.

    (4) It is unclear which category the child porn in this case falls into.

    Snooping to see if a computer contains something incriminating to its owner is a gross invasion of privacy. If it happens to show up criminal behaviour, this does not justify the act.

    I do not believe these system administrators came upon the child porn accidentally but, for the sake of argument, let's assume they did. If there is evidence of involvement in a pedophile ring, I think the police must be involved immediately since clear and present danger to others is involved. In other cases, I would normally follow company regulations. In unclear cases, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Fellow /.ers, if we cannot examine such issues with in a clear, unbaised fashion, what hope has our society as aa whole?

  214. Uhh, because I am not a public servant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cops, doctors, social workers, teachers are public servants. Even if they are not governmentally paid, their customer base is John Q Public.

    A computer support person doesn't serve the public at large, hence is not responsible to the public at large and should have no legal responsiblity to the public at large.

    Be that as it may, I'd anonymously narc out child porn peddlers/users and answer any reprisals with legal machinations.

  215. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by ahknight · · Score: 1

    Ok, so you didn't read what I said so I'll knock it down a level, mmk?

    Fictional porn feeds the minds of people that can't get the real thing. This will lead to one of two things: they will be happy with the fake stuff or they will go get the real thing.

    Getting the real thing is bad and what is illegal. If we get the sickos off the addiction all together then we can hope to fight it. If they can still get their fix then it will still happen.

    Really, dude, think of the children.

    As an aside, I really have no idea why you brought religion into this. This is social science, man. Twisted pervs chasing naked children and how we can stop it. Nothing more than that. The idea is to get anything that could ever fuel that mindset away from them and then hope it dies of starvation.

  216. What if it's planted? by Tugar · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered the chain of custody of the "criminals" hard drive?

    Most people in any place I've ever worked leave thier computer on all day long. They never lock the desktop and so anyone can get access to thier computer when they aren't there.

    Now imagine a disgruntled employee or student getting access to that computer.

    It's not hard to setup a newsreader to an Altopia account and have it download a chunk of alt.illegal.child-porn. You could set this up with a copy of X-news and delete the program without a trace once you were done. We are after all talking about a company owned computer. The control the user has over this machine is not as great as the control he has over his machine at home.

    What if he/she pissed off one of the techs? Whatif the tech does a cut-n-paste to //lawprof/c$? How would we ever know?

    I've read the article and yes I know he plead guilty and went to jail. But what happens if you go straight to the cops and the guy (or gal) is arrested immediately?

    It won't matter at all if the person is later found innocent. That person will forever have a blotch on his reputation. In some states, like Michigan, being found "not guilty" doesn't get your named removed from some "sex offender" lists.

    When I come across a computer that has a hard drive that is full to capacity, I don't go snooping for the reason immediately. There's no reason to go looking around in folders for "viruses" when a good AV program is available.

    I usually inform the user that they have to move or delete some stuff off the drive before I can fix it. Now after the user has told me that they have moved everything off the drive and I'm still seeing a full disk, I'm going to go looking for a cause. In this case DiskPieis your pal.

    I do this because I know that some of that stuff is going to be personal stuff. Finding nude photo's of the CEO's wife on USENET is one thing. Finding them on his hard drive is uncomfortable. I also work with users who have files that contain sensitive information about clients. I don't want to see that either.

    Last but not least, I'm not a cop. I don't play one on TV. And I don't get paid to investigate peoples criminal behavior. If they blatantly hold up proof in front of me that they are doing something wrong, then they've made a problem for me and I will act accordingly. But I do not consider it my place to hunt through someone's hard drive looking for pron.I don't have Pete Townsends' attorneys.

  217. Seduction by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    Serving hot dogs down at the youth club & babysitting does not a child psychologist or paediatrician make.

    It could be something as innocuous as sneaking the potential victim a piece of candy and asking the child not to tell Mom or Dad, she said, to "see if the child is amenable to manipulation."

    The abuser-in-waiting will start to spend more time with the child, and exhibit more outward -- and inappropriate -- signs of affection, such as giving back rubs or acting too playful.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  218. If you're so smart... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    I have a better question, how can you prevent, or strongly discourage, people from doing this, and also , how would you clean up the mess in a manner that removes blame from yourself and the company.

    Part #1 does anyone know of really good site blocking, proxy tools to keep this stuff out? If someone was to get something on a machine, how would I find it [temp files, caches, etc]. Are there any prgrams that can search for the stuff?

    Part #2 how would you get rid of "it" and by "it" I mean generally any illegal files, mp3, porn, programs, grocery lists, etc. For reasons everyone else mentioned, I'd prefer not to know someone had "kiddie porn" I just want to know if they've got dirty pics and delete the lot of them automatically, If they don't like it, tell the boss. Yeah, right. p. I suppose the best way is to use LTSP or Knoppix, then you don't have to worry about PCs. You can then require files to be in approperiate places and restrict the heck out of everything else! Do away with private folders all together. If everyone can see everyone's stuff, then there's not alot of room to go wrong. Maybe lock=down could be a really good Linux selling point?

  219. do what your POLICY says by dickens · · Score: 1

    Coming late to this discussion, but...

    I'm in the midst of studying for my GSEC recert exam, and there's a section that addresses this pretty directly.

    The recommendation is that you need to have a written policy on what to do in this case. And it needs to be signed by your boss and your boss's boss. You should have already decided beforehand in what cases the cops should be called.

    Also, it points out that you can't even make a copy of child porn files you find on someone's computer, without violating the law yourself.

  220. Straight to the police? by MiniChaz · · Score: 1

    You don't go straight to the police. You tell the boss and its his job to tell the police (or you tell him you will).

    This guy will have been sacked for telling the cops straight away without giving the company a chance to do some damage limitation.

  221. child-porn abuse by anythings-possible-b · · Score: 0

    21:16 18/5/2546

    TOPIC: abuse

    if i were this sys-admin:
    first: i would install a few back-doors. some obvious some in the kernel, etc.
    then i would fire myself.
    then would start mirroring ALL the bullshit THAT guy is downloading.
    i would fill a harddisk.
    then i would print some ugly stuff and send it to this guy and his wife. i would ask for a few 10-20k's.
    when i get the money i would go right straight to the feds with the harddisk.
    then i would blow the companies network.
    they would take me to court. the money i squeezed from the guy i would use to pay the attorney.
    make a huge madia-frenzy about the case and bye-bye goes the company.

    in short i would ruin the guys life. maybe he would commit suicide. saved the tax-payer some money.
    -
    that's about it.
    -
    greetings.

    1. Re:child-porn abuse by anythings-possible-b · · Score: 0

      and: reading all this stuff, i'm guessing 99% of people posting to this article watch alot of porn.
      porn's sick. childporn user/viewers should be electrocuted!
      why watch porn? because it's sexy? no.
      because you CAN'T control your sex.needs? probably. because they think everyone is doing it? probably.

      fat people and people using porn ARE the same! SICK! but alas it's a free world and men and woman eat/fuck/do whatever they want. they go to work without knowing what they are doing or what the larger implications are, they just go do it, so they can eat, get their sugar-level up, get horny, fuck around, go to sleep, next day them same etc...

      i bet you a hundred buck if you vist these peoples homes, it's dirty, smelly and there are still unwashed dishes in the sink. then carpets everywhere so they don't have to clean up their "spunk" they shoot everywhere. *EEW*.
      he's ugly his wife is ugly, no wonder. what's the word: "minory complex"?

      me, as a scientist am really reluctant to tell this kind of humankind my new discoveries (if i had any) because they would probably just use it for getting fatter, uglier and pornograficer!

      it's true, you can recognize a porn user (any) just by locking at them! it's in their eyes/ "gestik" / manure.

      Porn's ugly. like taking pictures of a hundred people naked in the park. i reminds me of one big fuck party in the scene "matrix reloaded" when they gather in the underground cave. i think i know why the maschines won and everybody op'd for a matrix. why only a guy born IN the machine can same "humankind". maybe i'm starting to understand terrorists too. maybe i'm also starting to understand why the economy is going down the drain, there is no innovation and everybody is getting dumber ...
      -
      i like sexy things. not NAKED things.
      -
      by the way it's like drugs: the longer you use it, the MORE you need. there is this chemical that is released in the brain when you have an orgasm.
      and that sexy-a-little-nude "porn" you watch as a teenager just won't be enough anymore. you're going to get the "snuff-pooh-on-her" movie. and when that's not enough, your probably going to get REALLY sick and hurt someone. like most drug-addicts do, become criminel.
      -
      good luck.

  222. Seems like a "sell more papers/mags article" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stopped counting "child pornography" after about the 7-8th time. That issue seems to be a minor factor of their case (The employee is filing for sexual harresment). This combined with the one sided reporting (The company can't comment much because of on-going court case) seems to me to be yet another article using skewed reporting and unsavoury topics to sell more copy.

  223. Retailiation Might Be A Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a former public sector lawyer I'd caution employees, especially public employees, from looking the other way when encoutering clear evidence of a felony. Some state statutes REQUIRE reporting crimes like child port, for a public employee failure to report could result in an official misconduct charge (sometimes with a mandatory 5 year minimum prison term). For private and public employers (i.e. supervisors) supressing such evidence by threats of retaliation (or by an established policy) could, actually probably would, result in even worse trouble for the supervisor carrying it out (obstruction of justice, criminal RICO, official misconduct again in the public sector). Companies and their leaders don't have the power they once did to avoid entanglement with the criminal justice system (Ken Lay may think its over - it ain't yet, Ken). Just a friendly warning from someone who knows how the guys in the white hats think. If you get tangled up in one of these situations RETAIN A LAWYER who specializes in employment law, preferably a someone whose background includes some time as a public prosecutor. Then DO THE RIGHT THING.

  224. How do you defend against false accusations? by Quizo69 · · Score: 1

    One aspect that rarely seems to be covered is that of being falsely accused of possessing illicit materials such as child pornography or bomb making instructions or whatever your "cause-du-jour".

    Sysadmins and techies are in an excellent position to plant pornography to "discover" during routine maintenance etc. If I as a sysadmin had some child pornography stored away for use in ruining a hated employee if I so chose (in an encrypted container file for example so it wouldn't come back and bite me), I could easily plant it in the employee's documents folder to be "found", by me or anyone else I anonymously tip off.

    Now the employee who has just had these images found in his documents folder is in serious trouble. He or she will not only be liable under the law for possession of it, but worse still, their reputation will be forever ruined by even the accusation of having it, even if it is later thrown out of court.

    Then, if it gets to court, the evidence will be, as previously posted, blown up to poster size and paraded in front of the jury, who will of course only see that the employee was obviously a sick individual to have these images, regardless of the fact they might have been planted. (Would YOU believe an employee who told you it was planted after it was discovered?)

    I won't even cover the issue of juries, lawyers, judges etc not being "affected" by viewing these pictures. (Who censors the censors??)

    What would YOU do if you were so accused?

  225. What would I do? by danila · · Score: 1

    If you discover illegal goodies on a machine, what should you do about it?

    I would explain the owner of that machine the risks associated with having such files on his/her machine and give him some suggestions about reducing that risk, like storing the "goodies" on external drive and/or using encryption.

    If his activities may negatively affect the company, I would suggest that he/she ceases them.

    P.S. It's nobody's business what a person stored on his HDD/CDs. I don't think there is a need to check every CD thrown in the trash and every computer sent into service centre. The fact that it is accessible doesn't mean it's a right thing to check it. Do you look for porn magazines/videos when you visit your friend at his/her home to report them to his/her spouse? That would be a good first step to witch trials...

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  226. So far by jjshoe · · Score: 1
    There are a lot of posts saying "He should not have snooped". Who said he snooped? when i work on a windows computer i never take my eye off of what it is doing for a second! (for some silly reason i think this will cut down on freezing) From the sounds of it lets ASSUME the drive was put into a computer with an updated virus checker and that the virus checker was run on the drive.


    a) in attempt to pull kiddie porn from say kazaa someone put BO or Netbus out there as 3jailbaiters.jpg.exe or something and this user was dumb enough to get it somehow. i do realize kazaa has built in features to stop this, and i dont know for sure it was kazaa, but this is just an example. virus checker then shows the file name that is found as a virus and the location to it. The techie see's the awful name and opens up the folder....


    b) when moving or copying large amounts of files on windows it shows file names. Techie keeps flipping an eyeball back to check on it and notices a lot of kiddieporn named files...


    I personaly dont care about the context of how he found the pictures. He did the right thing.


    If you are willing to sacrifice childeren for your privacy then you are partaking in child abuse as well.

    --
    -- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount} /dev/girl -t {wet;fsck;fsck;yes;yes;yes;umount} {/de
  227. Reason for Professional Registration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is another reason we IT'ers need to be recognized / registered as a profession, like MD's, Lawyers, etc. We can then have legally recognized codes of conduct we can follow, and employers / clients will have to recognize.

  228. limit the damage? by n9hmg · · Score: 1

    I'll tell you how they'd "limit the damage". They'd eliminate the evidence, then start recording "deficiencies in your job performance".
    Hit him first. Hit him hard. When the dust clears, and the rightness of your actions is a matter of legal record, you'll be much safer.
    That's not to say that you're not still fscked. Nobody wants to ever get into that situation, but once you're in it, pick your best chance for surviving it.

  229. At-Will has nothing to do with it. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    I bet to differ:
    http://whistleblowerlaws.com/statutes.htm

    You cannot fire someone for refusing to help you do something illegal.

  230. Promotion!! by xluap · · Score: 1

    Sir, excuse me, i have found child porn on your computer! It must have been caused by some virus, because we all know you are not a weirdo. Do you want me to delete the virus and the porn or will we first report it to the police? I have allready taken measures at the firewall so it won't happen again! I think i will be promoted.

  231. Monkey see, monkey do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    no one possessing such images can truly be said to have been encouraging anything - the abuse occurred 20 or 30 years previously

    Monkey see, Monkey do.

    Watching somebody else buggering little boys may well embolden (or at least excite) some idiot enough to plan and execute something for themselves.

    Of course, the more of this shit there is hanging around, the more chance there is of it falling into susceptible hands and revolutionising some other child's life. Try explaining to a pregnant nine-year-old that it's OK for her eleven-year-old brother (whodunnit) to look at even "boring" adult heterosexual porn, because it's "harmless".

    1. Re:Monkey see, monkey do... by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 1

      > Watching somebody else buggering little boys may well embolden
      > (or at least excite) some idiot enough to plan and execute
      > something for themselves.

      Prove your assertion. Personally, I agree with the Canadian judge who struck down a particular law forbidding the personal possession (not distribution) of child pornography--the argument that convinced him was that viewing child pornography could be a sexual "release valve" for pedophiles the same way regular pornography is a release vavle for normal heterosexual males.

      Be rational--what do people do when they view porn? They masturbate, orgasm, and then their sex drive temporarily wanes. I'd imagine it's exactly the same with pedophiles. From a rational standpoint, the mere posession of child pornography by a pedophile might actually help control his urges and keep them in the realm of fantasy.

      Think about it.

      --

      Chasing Amy
      (We all chase Amy...)
      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
  232. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So if we remove the 'fake stuff' the only thing left they can do is go for 'the real thing'. That's how I feel. I don't get what the allure to naked children is either, but child rape and molestation has been around a lot longer than child porn, and I think that in societies where there aren't laws that prevent the sharing and posession of such pictures there is a lot less exploitation of children.

    I feel the same way about illegal substances. Nobody would get shot over drugs if you could go get them at the liquor store. The prohibition forces the culture to become make-or-break violent.

    Also, you fail to address that at least some of the child porn out there is completely consentual and non-coerced. I remember when I was nine a female friend and I took 'child porn' polaroids of each other because it was fun and not-allowed. Is that sick or immoral? I don't think so, just a little weird.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  233. Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

    I thought this was kiddie porn.
    I'd think boobs would be (oddly enough) a turn-off.

  234. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by CrazyJoel · · Score: 1

    "Really, dude, think of the children."

    BS BS BS BS!

    Fake child porn harms no one.

    You can't criminalize what goes on in a person's head. As long as it stays in one's head it harms noone.

    You're the sicko to think you can create laws that make people's thoughts illegal.

    --

    Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
  235. Re:They told their boss, who reported it to the co by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    I'll bet they were problem employees who didn't exactly handle themselves with maturity throughout this particular ordeal and were terminated WITH CAUSE.

    If you read the article, you'd see that they were infact model employee's until JUST AFTER they reported what they found.

  236. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by ahknight · · Score: 1

    Your reasoning is flawed. You're saying that by catering to people with a mental illness and feeding that illness that you can limit that illness? To put it another way, you can put a fire out by throwing more wood on it? No.

    This is not like drugs. Next?

    Some child porn consentual? You're grasping for straws. That's like saying that if I was seven and saw another seven-year-old naked and played "doctor" or whatever that I was a child porn maniac or something. That's entirely incorrect because the two people are the same age which completely makes it not what is illegal. If those kids them take photos, that's not illegal. If they then distribute these photos that's illegal because someone older than them can get a hold of it and then we're back at my first post.

  237. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by ahknight · · Score: 1

    Which point are you arguing? People thoughts or people's art?

    Art is an expression of thought, not the thought itself. I'm not talking about limiting the thought, I'm talking about defending the laws that are already in place that say the expression of that thought is illegal.

    The point to making illustrations of child porn illegal is that it limits the imagination of the person with the illness. Hopefully that gives the person with the illness, and without the will to do it themselves, cause for seeking help in dismissing it. If we allow illustrations of it then we're basically saying, to an extent, "hey, this is all right after all, just don't actually do it, ok?" That doesn't work. They feed, and feed, and feed and then eventually you have a little league coach or someone that lands in jail for groping some 10-year-old.

    Stop it early, stop it completely, and then it can't start.

    I don't expect porn addicts to understand. I also don't expect people blinded by free speech advocacy to understand. Just because you want to do something does not mean you should be able to do something. With all freedoms come limits designed to protect fellow man. This one is designed to make any and all forms of expression of even an interest in abusing a child illegal. That's a good thing.

    If you can't see that by now then you need help.

  238. anonymity as a function of the state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we should get the anonymity-haters to focus on anonymous tips lines. They're evil privacy helping things. If you really had something to say, that was completely legal, why would you need to hide behind the anonymity of an anonymous tip line? I mean, damn... :)

    -- Ender, Duke_of_URL

  239. Re:They told their boss, who reported it to the co by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

    If you read the article, you'd see that they were infact model employee's until JUST AFTER they reported what they found.

    I read the article, and the article said that the employees said they were model employees unti ljust after they reported what they found. In my experience, and it is many, when employees pop off about how perfect employees they are and how hard they work, they're full of shit. Never once have I worked with someone, or had someone work for me, who said they were the best employee and didn't actually turn out to be lazy little fucks who were better at shooting their mouths off than actually working. The article gave me a STRONG impression that these two are just like all the other "perfect" employees. They're full of shit, trying to look good in the press.

    In Soviet America, Pravda reads you.

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  240. I concur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't try to help people out, unless you have written permission to do what you think will help them.

    Deny everything, do nothing, and don't talk to cops.

    Cops don't care about what's right, very little about what's legal, and very much with what they can get away with.

    They can lie to you, as long as they think you're a suspect, and they don't have to tell you that you're a suspect.

    Even if everything is dropped, you will probably need to contact an attorney, and that will set you back several thousand dollars - even if your attorney never shows up for a scheduled court appearance because he 'got stuck in traffic'.

    Anytime you get arrested, it's permanent record, and will be used as suspicion, plus job and dating discrimination. Plus you give up privacy, and it gets sent to credit agencies, and nationally logs your fingerprints, etc, etc.

    Even if you were actually the victim of a crime, but the perp ends up more beatup than you? Yup.

    Also remember, you want to be the one on the phone to the cops. If you're gonna have to hit someone, call the cops and then say he's hitting me, drop the phone and peg the bastard. That's what the legal system will teach you, if you bother to pay attention.

    There is no such thing as justice, except what you can extract without getting caught.

    If you ever fess up to stuff, the 'justice' system will come down on you harder. Always deny.

    Learn lessons from other people, it's worth it.

  241. Porn == Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having religion that doesn't recommend that you beat queers, or kill infidels just reminds you that some sects of Christianity advocate that.

    So people will be happy with the fake watered down stuff, or engage in the real thing.

    The reason *e brought religion into it is that both child pornography desire and religious desire are both products of belief systems. Some people believe those things. Other people don't.

    If we're banning beliefs, and not actions, then there's a definite case to be made against religion(s).

    -- Ender, Duke_of_URL

    1. Re:Porn == Religion by ahknight · · Score: 1

      That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

      You know, I think that it's amazing the lengths that some minds will go to "fight the belief systems" in the world just to express some form of independence, but that's just ... honestly, that's just funny.

      Ok, fine, you're going "against the machine" or whatever and making some point here. Fine. Have you even questioned why you want to stretch things so far that you liken pictures of naked seven-year-olds to religion? I mean, to any normal person making that association is beyond absurd and into the comical realm of being raped by aliens, so to actually have the defunct mind needed to get to that level you really have to have something against religion.

      I think rather than trying to steer towards that area of conversation you just need to stop and think for yourself about the world, man. I mean it, that was one huge leap in logic over molten cesspools of reason and association and through the brick wall of sanity. That had to hurt, man. Pick yourself up and look around and see what was driving you to do that kamikaze stunt rather than participate in this discussion. You need some massive introspection, there.

    2. Re:Porn == Religion by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Apparently you lack the ability to wrap your tiny little brain around the argument I was making.

      Fact: fictitious child porn harms no one. No children were used in the making of it. Prosecuting people for indulgence in fiction is prosecuting thought crimes.

      Fact: some people, myself included, think that religion is inherently sick, the workings of a deluded mind. Whether you happen to subscribe to this belief is entirely irrelevant.

      Fact: so long as these perversions - child porn or religion - are limited to 'thought crimes' no one gets harmed. It's only when they're forced into reality - the actual molestation of real children, the forced conversion or repression of non-believers through legislation - that they become harmful.

      Is that easy enough for you to follow? Can you make the connection between point A and point B?

      Thought crimes, no matter how distasteful I find them, are not *actual crimes*. Prosecuting them is just plain evil, a perversion of the legislative system to enforce a moral belief that has no bearing on reality. Trying to make others think like you do, or believe like you do, says far more about your character than it ever will about the people you're trying to punish.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    3. Re:Porn == Religion by ahknight · · Score: 1

      I thought about trying to explain the problems with your derailed logic and then I realized it would be all for naught since your mind is quite enveloped in it's fantasy land.

      Go on, stay there and be paranoid and leave the nice sane people alone.

      [sigh]

  242. Re:Even Senior VP's get fired for blowing the whis by theolein · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't go to the BSA, but my situation is not the same. But you're right about using handles online etc. The thought occurred to me while writing that post that maybe I should just shut up.

    I don't know if there are any good answers to situations like this. The best would probably be just to accept it and make do with what you have. Trying to bust your former boss' arse can be very difficult and can rebound on you badly. But covering yourself in case you do get hauled to court is not a bad idea.

  243. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by maxpublic · · Score: 1

    Fictional porn feeds the minds of people that can't get the real thing. This will lead to one of two things: they will be happy with the fake stuff or they will go get the real thing.

    Bullshit. Prove it. Provide cites to scientific studies published in accredited, peer-reviewed journals that support your statement.

    No substantive link has ever been established between pornography and any form of sexual violence. Fact is, sexually violent people are violent whether or not they have access to porn. That's a truism; rape, child or not, has been with us throughout human history, and long before the invention of pornography.

    There has been no rise in sexual violence since the advent of porn. There is no link between the two. None. This is the party line of right-wing freaks who use arguments like these to force their narrow moralistic views on everyone else.

    If we get the sickos off the addiction all together then we can hope to fight it.

    The evidence to date suggests that the tendency towards sexual violence is actually biological in nature. The only successful treatment for such behavior is through drugs. Without drugs, the recidivism rate *even with extensive, ongoing therapy* is greater than 90%. This is no better than the rate *without therapy*.

    Do you understand? Therapy does nothing precisely because this problem is biologically based - only drugs work. This is not an 'addiction', it's a basic brain malfunction that can only be treated - so far - by altering how the brain works on a chemical level.

    Access to pornography is entirely irrelevant. Either you're a sicko or you aren't, and if you are your only hope lies in drug treatment. If you rape children, *you're defective*. If you don't rape children, no amount of pornography is going to alter your brain in some strange way to make you defective.

    Really, dude, think of the children.

    The argument of assholes. "Think of the chiiilllldren!" Christ, folks like you are a dime a dozen these days.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  244. encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you encrypt your data using 128 bit encryption, can the cops still crack it? How about WinXP Pro's built in encryption for NTFS? Would it be secure against law enforcement agencies?

  245. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll ever be convinced that merely looking at something is bad, immoral, or wrong. It might be an indication of a disorder, but more often than not it's just another thing for dirty old men to jerk off to, and I don't have a problem with that.

    I think our efforts are much better put to rearing a society that minimizes the demand for such material, and I don't think criminalizing possesion is a means to do that. Maybe we should tighten the laws up on people who actually commit sex crimes, even if it doesn't deter them it is to our advantage to not allow them to re-enter society.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  246. Re:Viewing kidde porn hurts nobody, leave it alone by ahknight · · Score: 1

    I would expect you would have at least seen the last statement as humor, but you're all riled up and spewing canned arguments so I suppose you missed that. And other things as well, it seems.

    Not worth my time.

  247. Lesson Learned from this incedent. by MoronBob · · Score: 1

    The folks thinking that child porn is so unexceptable to everyone tried to do what they thought was right by telling their superiors. What they did not realize is that at this university(and many others) the child porn is more exceptable than snooping. Next time inform the police annonymously and maybe this professor would not be the only one at the school that was found out. Anyone who even remotely tries to justify this filth needs to be watched.

    --
    Telecommuting! What about socialization?
  248. Re:They told their boss, who reported it to the co by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    the employees said they were model employees unti ljust after they reported what they found.

    Its been a few days since i read the article, but i thought they had performace evaluations to back up thier statements. At least, thats the impression i was left with.

  249. Re:They told their boss, who reported it to the co by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

    Its been a few days since i read the article, but i thought they had performace evaluations to back up thier statements. At least, thats the impression i was left with.

    It's been a few days for me as well, but that was definitely not the impression I was left with. However, considering what their words seem to indicate about what kind of workers they are (regardless of whatever proof they have, in my opinion), and the fact that they snooped on a customer, I have to side with the employer on this one.

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  250. Fuck you, fucking hypocrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice website. You call yourself a Christian?!?

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=45969&cid=47 47 022