Kiddie Porn - The Virus Did It

The New York Times reports on a British man who was accused of downloading child pornography, and who successfully convinced the court that a virus did it. This is at least the second time this has happened. These cases are extremely interesting since they bring together all sorts of issues of computerized agents - who is actually responsible when your computer does something?

Comments

Re:responsibility

[Renraku]

ISPs aren't at fault because they provide the connection. Upstream and downstream. They do not guarentee that its contents will be safe. That's what firewalls are for. Microsft or some OS company might/should be partially liable (maybe aiding/abetting?) if there's a well-known software hole that allowed the attackers to gain access to a computer even while the user is taking precautions to prevent that kind of thing. Especially since the user was hassled this much. People are probably going to say it was his fault for installing the trojans, but going to jail for a kiddie-pr0n charge isn't quite the acceptable punishment for computer illiteracy.. Maybe having his HDD formated, but not prison time.

The problem is over-aggressive law enforcement

[heironymouscoward]

This is probably an unfashionable idea, but the problem appears to be more that law enforcement agencies are treating child porn as an easy way to increase their scores. In truth there is probably little basis for treating downloading of child porn as "criminal behaviour", although the making and selling of it is most definitely so. I'm not defending child porn, but it's entirely possible that it represents for many would-be child molesters, an alternative way of satisfying their unhealthy sexual tendencies.
Aggressive policing against people who have (for whatever reason, and there may be many, both innocent and less so) child porn on their computers is counter-productive. It does not protect children, it does not prevent child abuse, it does not catch the real exploiters, but it does create grief for many people who have done little more than click on the wrong button.
Crime and punishment must be based on some kind of real moral injustice and the redressment of this. I don't think this is what we're seeing in these cases.

Re:The problem is over-aggressive law enforcement

[aug24]

In truth there is probably little basis for treating downloading of child porn as "criminal behaviour", although the making and selling of it is most definitely so.

This is an old and dangerous canard. Firstly, there is a mass of evidence that photos are taken to order within groups of abusers, and secondly (for sex crimes in general) those with pictures are statistically likely to go on to physical acts.

Further, your statement that:

It does not protect children, it does not prevent child abuse, it does not catch the real exploiters, but it does create grief for many people who have done little more than click on the wrong button.

is total rubbish in the case of someone who has deliberately dled kid porn - which is clearly the majority of people with kp on their machines as this defence is not a common one. Here in the UK, a TV documentary series was made last year (which was incredibly hard to watch). In it, an investigation was made that went from finding pictures to proving abuse... Too right this sort of thing should be followed up. It will protect children.

Finally, do you really think that there is a 'wrong button' out there that will dl large numbers of images on to your machine? If so, imo, you're some kind of fool.

Justin.

Re:The problem is over-aggressive law enforcement

[Jugalator]

There are now a great number of sites hosted and created in russia that make and sell child porn to western customers (since they are the ones who got the money). Childeren are being molested raped and killed to generate these images. This is being done because people are willing to pay for them. Wipe out the customers and the suppliers will go away.

I'm not sure, but by "downloading" the parent poster might have meant getting the porn from IRC, FTP, newsgroups, or P2P networks. These are all known to be major sources for child porn, perhaps even larger than the pay sites. Search for "child porn" on Kazaa and you'll probably get half a ton of sources. However, the producers of it get no revenue from this to continue with the "business".

I can see where the parent is getting at -- that the current laws WILL get problems with prosecuting people that was never tracked as having PAID for the porn. Especially since the possiblities of trojan infections cannot be ignored and it is a well-known fact today that hackers can use users' hard drives for storage of all sorts of things via trojans. It would even be LOGICAL for them to store exactly child porn on others hard drives to get away. And sometimes when a law can't be enforced, we're better without the law. One can't deny that these accusions hurt a lot for the victim and will most likely destroy large parts of his life even if he is never considered guilty. That's unfortunately human psychology...

Personally I think a few years in jail for a child porn collector causes a bit less grieve then a child being raped and killed. Apperantly you don't.

A guy who get child porn uploaded via a trojan shouldn't be punished for a raped child in Russia. This is what the law might allow in its current state. But perhaps we'll have to live with that.

Re:The problem is over-aggressive law enforcement

[JaredOfEuropa]

Firstly, there is a mass of evidence that photos are taken to order within groups of abusers

This is the argument often used by those that want to throw the book at buyers/downloaders of child pornography. Some of them would even agree that looking at such pictures in itself is not a bad thing, but going after 'users' of kiddy porn results in a diminished demand for such stuff, and as a result less children are abused. (Not my argument, but this is the line of reasoning often quoted). However, the fact that 'consumers' of child pornography create a market for such material, does not automatically make the act of looking at or posessing the material a crime.

those with pictures are statistically likely to go on to physical acts

That is a very dangerous statement for two reasons:
1) If people who look at these pictures are more likely to go on to physical acts... is that because of the pictures, or did they have the tendency anyway? In the latter case, giving them such pictures might actually help getting them their fix, so that they will not go on to the physical act.
2) If colored people are statistically more likely to commit crimes (disclaimer: this is just an example which I picked because it's a widely held stereotype). Does that mean we should pre-emptively go and arrest them all? Propensity to commit a criminal act is not a crime! Besides, just like in the example I gave, the propensity to commit the crime isn't even proven... it's just a statistical correlation.

Too right this sort of thing should be followed up. It will protect children.

It should be followed up, but it must not turn into a witchhunt. Too bad that these days it seems that when it comes to our rights and due process, anything goes when 'the safety of our children' might be involved.

Re:The problem is over-aggressive law enforcement

[Hoi Polloi]

"It will protect children."

If kids never got molested before the invention of photgraphy I'd believe you. Also, most kids are molested by relatives or friends of the family who don't need pictures to see little kids in bathing suits, etc.

Re:Virus?

[dbleoslow]

I think it's time that people took some sort of responsibility for their net surfing. Situtations like this will pop up from this point on. People don't have to know how a computer works, but they should be able to run a virus scanner or take it to someone who does. If I notice that my car's brakes aren't working that well, I can do one of three things. I can A: repair the brakes or B: take my car to someone who can to fix the brakes or C: drive around as if nothing's wrong. If I run over somebody because my brakes don't work, I'm pretty sure I can get sued because I'd be responsible for my car. You can do quite a bit of damage with a computer that's connected to the internet nowadays. People should be required to take responsibility for the health of that computer.

The question is

[AbstracTus]

Can we demand that regular Joe's take responsibility for their computer, and their computers security? That is to say, should we be responsible for ensuring that others cannot access our computers and do illegal deeds with it? Now, that would require way more knowledge IT security than the regular Joe has, however it might cause the public to demand a more secure OS etc.

Re:Only One Conclusion

[mental_telepathy]

"Of course I do not think it was a virus"

And that's the worst part. There will always be a percentage of the population that assumes anyone accused of a crime is guilty. Nevermind that he convinced a Jury, who presumably were working off expert testimony.

Re:Whoever caused it to

[Snooweatinganima]

and, for sure, that's an old concept: "nihil esse sine ratione" (Leibniz), nothing exists without a cause/reason behind it. If a trojan opens your box to the general public, and you do not have the ressources to locate that problem, then it's NOT your fault. Others did bad things with your property. It's like strangers having a orgy in your house while you're not there...of course, remembering to lock the door on your house is probably easier than to knowing how to secure your PC.

Re:Virus?

[Blue Stone]

Well, of course you don't need a license to use a computer. You don't need to pass a competency test to get your hands on a box connected to the net.
But then again, you can't wipe out several generations of a family by crashing your computer.

I think you're overstating the case. Nobody died.
This guy's ignorance was only a danger to himself.

Re:Virus?

[glesga_kiss]

If I notice that my car's brakes aren't working that well, I can do one of three things. [snip] If I run over somebody because my brakes don't work, I'm pretty sure I can get sued because I'd be responsible for my car.

Yes, but common knowledge tells everyone what the brakes do in a car. You do a driving test that requires the use of the brake.

A lot of the people who use the internet these days know nothing about it. I'm sure that at least 90% of web users are oblivious to the fact that it's possible for a mallicious web page to crash your browser, install a trojan, and do all sorts of nasty stuff. How many click OK to Comet Cursor or "magical time sync software"? Who here hasn't been asked to help a friend with a troublesome system, that was found to contain all maner of trojans and ad-ware?

It's often said that ignorance isn't an excuse. I'd argue against that in many cases. Ignorance is an excuse where it would take 3-4 years of learning about IT to be aware of what's going on under that case.

Statistics

[heironymouscoward]

"those with pictures are statistically likely to go on to physical acts..."

Do you have figures to back up this claim?

The study of pornography and its impact on sex crimes is always highly charged, but there is a good basis for believing that free access to pornography actually reduces sexual offenses (not just against children, but of all kinds).

And yes, there are "wrong buttons" that will download images to your PC. Someone else here mentioned that Newsnet is regularly spammed with child porn.

Criminals should be punished, no doubt about it. But witch-hunts are never productive. You think you are catching the real crooks? You're not. In fact, you're driving the sale and distribution of child porn underground, causing it to become harder and more violent.

Pushing even an obnoxious trade into the hards of real criminal networks is not wise: you may get that rosy feeling of 'doing good', but the cost is paid by huge numbers of new victims in far-off places.

Re:Virus?

[dbleoslow]

Yes it is a apples and oranges comparisons in many ways. You can wipe out serveral generations of family with a car, but you an also wipe out the savings of generations of family with a computer. That is another extreme example but it can potentially happen. And you don't have to pass a test to buy a car, just to legally drive it. There's plenty of unlicensed people out there causing accidents and they're held responsible for it (if caught of course). Nothing bad happended to this guy but it's only a matter of time before something bad happens to someone. The internet age is still young and as more people and services move the the net, the potential for damges increases.

Re:ISP logs

[glesga_kiss]

If I knew that my ISP keeps such logs and is prepared to give them to the authorities, I'd become a former customer in no time

You'd better call them up then, if you live in the UK or USA. Both countries have legislation forcing ISPs to be able to do this.

May I suggest two tin cans and a piece of string as a more private medium? ;-)

Sure kiddie porn is awful, but the right to privacy should not be eroded even if few people abuse this right.

Yup, and that's how people have been manipulating other people for (at least) hundreds of years. Claim that in order to prevent one horrible thing, another horrible thing should be done. Examples:

• The Nazis claimed that the Jews were a threat to German peoples freedom and prosperity, and as a result the world had the holocaust.
• The Israelis claim that the Palestinions are a threat to Israel, so Palestine must be turned into a police state
• The Americans claimed that Terrorists were a threat to the USAs freedom, and that many freedoms should be taken away to prevent this.
• Colgate say that if your breath smells, you will have an unhappy life, and you must buy their products for the rest of your life to prevent this

Manpulation is easy. Issues like kiddie porn are so emotive, we should be careful what liberties are taken by those who seek to use the problem to their advantage. Taking the US example from above, the new snooping powers have been saught for many years by several organisations, long before terrorism was thrust into the spotlight. They used the situation to achieve their goals. I can see the same potentially happening here.

You are confusing two things

[heironymouscoward]

Possibly intentionally: child molesters, and people who download child pornography.

Uhm, I've a large collection of videos about cars crashing, but that does not make me a dangerous driver.

You are being somewhat wicked when you imply that everyone with a penchant for watching a kind of act is also likely to go out and commit it. This is a tired pseudo-psychology that has tried and failed to link TV to violence, games to violence, foreign-language films to political insurrection, what have you. Monkey see, monkey do? I don't think this argument has any provable basis.

You cannot save children from exploitation by making such falacious arguments. You must show a clear connection between the person in possession of pornography, and those committing the acts.

Imagine we're talking about rape videos. Now rape is a crime. Does this mean that someone luridly watching a rape video (real or faked) is actually a criminal too?

How about someone watching the film of a bank heist. Or the millions of viewers who watch 'cop reality shows'. Are they all likely to jump up and start stealing cars?

You can't stop using logic just because you're discussing an emotive subject - if anything you have to be more clear headed than usual.

Lurid interest in an illegal act is not (in the general sense) a crime, and is often a substitute for the real thing. Think clearly and you will see that there are better ways of preventing abuse of children.

One example: to recognise that most abuse of children actually happens in countries where children's rights are totally ignored, and often takes far worse forms than sexual exploitation.

Culpability

[The Famous Brett Wat]

I didn't RTFNYTA. Even so, this is Slashdot, and I need not care much about that.

The question of culpability for the actions of a computer is going to become increasingly interesting. Spammers and other miscreants are getting more brazen about the use of third party computers by which to make mischief. I'm not saying that it's a new concept -- far from it -- only that the audacity factor is going up. Dealers in kiddie porn and other widely-considered-bad things may start to see third party computers as a safe medium for their wares; a good way to cover their tracks.

It seems unfair for a person with a virus-infected computer to be accountable (even in part) for the actions of a malicious third party who takes control of that computer without the owner's knowledge. On the other hand, it's risky to let them off the hook for it: genuinely culpable parties may install a virus on their own system as a legal defense measure! And if the owner of the computer were nailed for the actions of their computer, could they then sue some software or hardware vendor for enabling a malicious third party to use their computer without authorisation, thus exposing them to this risk? Presumably the end user doesn't haven't much of a case against the Internet Service Provider: I would expect the ISP to be offering a network service, leaving it up to you and your equipment as to what use is made of that service.

The real problem here, as I see it, is that we want to discourage systems which facilitate abuse by evading accountability. The real culprit -- the malicious third party who uses the computer as a zombie slave to get up to no good -- is safely hidden from accountability through anonymity. The owner of the equipment is deemed not culpable on the basis of inability to know or do anything about it. The owners of the network infrastructure are just providing the advertised service, and should be thought of as common carriers. The owner of the software which enables the virus, well, no software authors seem to want to be held accountable for their software either, and that's somewhat understandable.

But if we don't come up with some strategy for discouraging systems which facilitate abuse by third parties, the natural consequence will be an increase in unpolicable lawlessness. To complicate matters, insecure systems are already pervasive, so it's hard to know where to start. Who do we put the pressure on? I didn't RTFA, as I said (don't read NYT's website on principle), so I don't know what conclusions were drawn. It strikes me that perhaps we need to start holding the end user accountable for the mischief of their system if they don't take reasonable precautions to prevent it, such as using anti-virus software, or keeping modestly up to date with security patches. Maybe we can also hold commercial software/hardware sellers accountable to do their fair share in selling a merchantable product, with particular reference to reasonable standards of safety, and working as advertised. In the case of OEM-installed operating systems, it's probably the OEM that should foot the bill, as the seller of the product. Penalties should be relative to the cost of the product.

I'm not suggesting that these ideas ought to be implemented, but we ought to think about them. What seems fair and would have the desired impact? Most end users aren't aware how unsafe the Internet is, with regards to this kind of abuse, and they should be educated about it, or protected from it. Computer manufacturers are selling computers as internet-ready but by and large they are selling an unsafe product. Selling a machine bundled with anti-virus protection might be sufficient to make the product "safe", from a merchantability perspective. Removing (or not providing) Internet functionality would also protect the manufacturer from Internet-related issues. Providing clear warning material on the dangers of connecting to the Internet might also be sufficient ass-cover.

Stuff to ponder. And note that I didn't rant about Microsoft Windows, despite opportunity and motive.

Deceptive website practices illegal?

[mabhatter654]

If it's the case that you are responsible for your PC contents, then shouldn't programs like the famous Gator be considered illegal. It stands as the best example of a program that is downloaded to your computer under false pretenses and basicly "hacks" windows without the user's ability to easily turn it off. Downloading countless AntiVirus and AdWare software isn't the answer...someone's always finding a way around it.

With the wild DAs making accusations, perhaps it is time to finally delcare any software that acts without the user's knowlage to be illegal hacking...whether it be Windows "phone-homes", Gator advertizing, or of course malicious virii!

Of course I wouldn't condone hacking Gator to put inapproperate pictures on unsuspecting users' computers in any way...

Re:Virus?

[yoshi_mon]

You can wipe out several generations of family with a car, but you an also wipe out the savings of generations of family with a computer. That is another extreme example but it can potentially happen.

The question is, how? If I fail to stop for a red light I can cause terrible damage to someone else. If I drive into an oncoming lane I can do the same. Both of these actions are full wrong and preventable by me following the rules that have been setup.

Now, exactly how would I "wipe out the savings of generations of a family?" Is it as easy as deciding to not press a break petal? As easy as shifting a wheel a few degrees to the right or left? Not hardly, I know of NO way that I could bypass the safeguards that have been setup to protect financial institutions with such ease or without forethought.

To bypass such safeguards would require not only special skills and knowledge, but you would also actively know what you were doing during the process. (IE knowledge that you were actively breaking the rules that have been setup.)

Whereas a trojan or virus is designed to infiltrate a persons PC without their knowledge and do things that they have no knowledge of. And in most cases does things that they would not even have the skills to do either.

This whole analogy is flawed and silly.

Re:One lesson to be learned

[kryliss]

And just what is Joe Schmoe cop suppoesed to do? Write down the internet address? They are more apt to arrest you for having kiddie porn on computer. They are mostly a technology handicaped bunch. If you were to inform someone, inform your ISP's abuse department or if you must inform the authorities contact the FBI. But remember that you are taking your freedom into your own hands. It seems like the "law enforcement" agencies are always on a witch hunt and don't care who they hurt in order to further their own agendas.

my $0.02

no no no no no NO!

[ecalkin]

the answer is not to make this stuff easier to use! first, we have been doing that for 10 years now. we've been lowering the bar and people still keep tripping over it!
secondly, making it 'easier' has taken away security and safety mechanisms.

no matter how easy we make this, if you are not required to learn/know a certain amount, you will be making a mess. maybe just for you, maybe for other people.

eric

Re:In Japan...

[glesga_kiss]

The Japanese goverment has been suspiciously lax in pursuing enactment of Child Porn laws

Yeah, but their culture see's it differently i.e. not so much of a problem. To them, it's like Saudi Arabia asking us to clamp down on alcohol, because their society doesn't tolerate our activies. A lot of Asian porn features school girl references there, and they really dig the whole cute china-doll thing. I'm sure many of the legal ones get made up to look as young as possible, jeez that even goes on in Western porn as well, 25 year-olds masquerading as 18 year-olds.

With different ages of consent around the world, policing this planet is not an easy task. I think I heard once that the age in Spain was 12, though that may have been years ago and it's probably standardised through the EU now. How exactly to you legislate based on widely differing laws and cultures?

Remember also that our society is very diffent to many others, and has only become that way recently. Several hundred years ago, most people were married and had had several children by 17-18 years old. You'd be lucky to reach 30 years old and have half of your children reach adulthood. Our ever extending life-span has lengthened the "age of innocence", but it's not "naturally human". If a boy/girl can conceive children, that's natures way of saying it's time to start having sex, regardless of what abstinence groups or abusive catholic priests regard the issue.

It's a very muddled issue. Where do you draw the line?

Re:Virus?

[pantycrickets]

If I notice that my car's brakes aren't working that well, I can do one of three things. I can A: repair the brakes or B: take my car to someone who can to fix the brakes or C: drive around as if nothing's wrong. If I run over somebody because my brakes don't work, I'm pretty sure I can get sued because I'd be responsible for my car.

Once again, someone who tries to apply a metaphor from the real world, and fails.

You see, almost every day I get kiddie porn spam. Young russian girls, y.o.u.n.g BOYZ!, girls and horses, all kinds of crap. Sometimes they attach pictures, usually they don't. I always delete them. They're not actually deleted of course though, and the thought has crossed my mind: could something like this be used as a form of entrapment?

"Look, we found KIDDIE PORN in his TRASH FOLDER!!!"

So, if you wanted to make a little comparison with real life, in this case it would be more akin to someone cutting your brake lines and you driving into a crowd of people and then being held responsible then sent to prison.

Of course, since the moderation system on Slashdot was meant to censor anyone with an even slightly unpopular opinion.. this will be posted at 0. Oh well..

Re:Valid Defense?

[Jerf]

could this not set a precedent for Civil copyright cases?

There shouldn't be a precedent to be set! If somebody else uses a computer to do something, it's 100% their responsibility if that's a legal thing to do. (If they don't have permission to use that computer, they're already starting out on the wrong foot legally.) The fact that it happens to be your computer should be mostly meaningless; you didn't do anything.

Maybe someday, when it's possible to reliably say "This computer is 100% secure", then we can blame people for everything their computer does. In the meantime, security vulnerabilities in old mainstays like ssh and man and other things continue to be found.

The only concievable legal basis for nailing a computer owner for something they had nothing to do with and weren't even aware was happening is sheer convenience, and the goal of Justice is not to make law enforcement convenient. In fact, convenient law enforcement is nearly diametrically opposed to Justice, as a practical matter.

Will this make people use it as an excuse? Of course it will! So what? People use "self-defense" as an excuse for murder all the time. Sometimes it's a lie. Sometimes it's the truth. It remains a valid defense; I would not want to live in a society where self-defense is the same as murder. That it might be used as an excuse is a completely invalid argument; you're implicitly appealing to law-enforcement convenience, and that is not a valid thing to argue for. Justice should not be convenient (mostly the first paragraph, although the point underscores the whole piece).

brag and auto-downloading from usenet

[Anonymous Coward]

It's reassuring to me that someone else has noticed this. A friend suggested to me that I checked out the pr0n on usenet, which I did (and found some good stuff). However, I combined & decoded several series of files, one of which turned out to be kiddie filth. In my 10+ years of internet use, I've never actually stumbled across any before.

You can waste a lot of time sitting in front of a Usenet screen, downloading and decoding messages. So I looked around, and found "brag". (brag.sourceforge.net) It can download and decode messages automatically. A few shell scripts, and a cron job later, I have a nightly download of a few selected newsgroups. Could there be kiddie porn in there? Maybe. I have thought about what might happen if there was and I was caught with it. I can easily prove that I had set up my computer to download things nightly from usenet, so I would hope that it would be obvious that it wasn't intentional.

Since it downloads about 1000 images a night, I don't have to time to look through them all. I could have questionable material on my computer right now. But who would be responsible for it? Me, for not verifying every image that is downloaded? My ISP for carrying that material? The person who posted it to a non-related newsgroup? The creator of "brag"? Ultimately, in this hypothetical case, the responsible party would be the person who posted it to the newsgroup. Everyone else would be an innocent bystander. We have to remember WHY the laws against these things are out there. At one point I did see some images where the age of the girls was questionable in my mind, so I deleted them. These weren't the typical 25 yr old with pigtails described as "teens", but what appeared to be girls under 18. It wasn't like they were kids, but just to be sure I deleted the pictures. If I come across anything that is questionable, it is removed ASAP.

In the news story, people successfully defended themselves against kiddie porn charges. Where is the issue here? That they were accused? Hey, they had the stuff on their computer, and they were able to explain why they had it. How is the system not working here?

Computer Crime

[t_allardyce]

Maybe access related computer crime needs to be looked at very carefully. The people who take the photos and who probably rape and abduct the children are the real criminals, true people who download it have questionable minds (assuming they actually did it intentionally and it wasnt an accident, virus or someone else) but that doesnt change the fact that they are were using their computer to access data.

If you asked someone to read out loud the hex code of a jpeg containing child porn while you copied it down and put it in a file is that illigal or is that free speech? this has already been looked at with the DeCSS case. You might say who cares they are pedophiles but it does infringe on every other aspect of the internet: If you are arrested for downloading something, eg music, films, porn, software you are really just being arrested for using your computer, its a very different crime from taking out a gun and shooting someone, rape, murder, assult etc.

It just seems to me that legislators dont understand what computers are and they are treating it the same as everything else. If the law allows someone to be arrested for downloading child porn on the internet then there will be no problem making it illigal to do any number of things (downloading anti-american political pages,diagnostic tools, research papers/dmca violating material etc.)

That doesnt mean that computer crime should be abolished, if you are trying to bring the internet down or disrupt traffic that is pretty serious and should be treated differently (in that case you are accessing remote systems with out permission etc.) and ofcourse if you write an outlook vbs virus the case should just be laughed out of the court room and microsoft should pay for your taxi home!

Sorry for bad spelling or flaimbait views - my spell check is broken and the milk in my coffee curdled this morning

Re:Virus?

[corrosiv]

I can't comment on the virus thing because I'm still reeling from the statement "nobody died" in reference to child pornography.

Go out and try it?

[heironymouscoward]

"someone watching a child porn may go out and and try it"
How on earth do you reach this conclusion?
It matches nothing demonstrated or seen elsewhere. In no domain do people jump up and imitate the things they see unless it is clearly part of an ongoing social movement.
A person who intends to molest children will do so with or without porn. Children have been sexually abused for all history.
It's the same old argument about violence on TV: people forget that the western world (US included) has the lowest levels of violence of any society in any place, any time. Although the levels of violence portrayed are higher than ever, the actual violence we encounter is rarer than ever.
You cannot just state that child pornography is an exception to this trend. People commit criminal acts because they have the means, the motive, and the opportunity. Not because they watched some illegal pictures.
And I have a daughter, yes, and if someone touched her or took pictures of her, I'd hunt him down. Nonetheless: there are ways to attack crime, and the current witch hunt on people who have kiddie porn on their computers is a mistake and it will eventually be seen as such.
I'm going to stop discussing this subject now but I will say one last thing: most of the 'science' in the public discussion on child porn comes from the police, and this is a party with a vested interest in depicting all child porn viewers as twisted criminals. The police are a large part of a public perception that is painting huge segments of the population as criminals. It makes no sense except when you are trying to "act tough on crime."

More like parking your car

[vilbel]

You can't compare broken brakes with surfing the internet.

The situation is more like that you park your car in a foreign country. While you away, somebody opens your car and put drugs into a hidden place within the car. After that you drive home and pass the borders to your country. Later, another person will pick up the drugs. You will become a curier without knowing it.

It is realy hard, even for professionals, to harden a pc against attacks from the internet.

Considerable Issues

[virg_mattes]

> There are lots of issues to consider here, firstly the daughter claim... his daughter may have had a vendetta against him because he molested her, or she knew that he was commiting acts against children and just wanted him to get what was coming to him. Who knows...

To be blunt, who cares? If she was molested, she should accuse him of that. If she has reason to believe he's molesting other children, let her present that evidence. Framing him for a crime he didn't commit is never right, even if he committed some other crime.

> also the other thing to consider (and i have some experience in this) when i was getting started in computers and did some stupid things (bruteforcing passwords from my own system), i always ran a copy of BO on my own pc, so i could blame "the evil hackers" if it came down to it. Possibly he was doing the same thing with much more sinister acts.

Sorry, but "possibly" doesn't do in a court of law. Sure it's possible he set up an alibi, but if there's not sufficient evidence that he did it's not the court's right to assume guilt. That's how "beyond a reasonable doubt" works.

Virg

Re:Considerable Issues

[carlos_benj]

If she was molested, she should accuse him of that.

Granted, if framing him was what she did, it was wrong. However, your statement assumes that people believe kids when they accuse adults. I've counselled a number of kids who've been molested and the psychological pressure the molester usually employs keeps most of them from telling. Those who do tell often start with the other parent (usually mom) who often blames the child and sides with her husband/boyfriend. After that, telling the authorities is out of the question, I mean, if mom won't believe you....

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

[Kjella]

"those with pictures are statistically likely to go on to physical acts..."

Do you have figures to back up this claim?

In other news, people looking at gay porn tend to have gay sex, and people looking at straight porn tend to have straight sex. Scientists are shocked.

The statistical question is: "Would there be more or less people commit child abuse if child porn was freely available?" This decomposes into two questions:

A-1. How many current abusers would be sufficently satisfied with only looking at child porn, had it been easy available in great quantity (reducing abuse)?

A-2. How many people that otherwise wouldn't have abused children get so inspired by child porn that they choose to abuse children (increasing abuse)?

Note that there are two groups that are simply irrelevant to this question:

B-1. Those who would abuse children, porn or no porn
B-2. Those who wouldn't abuse children, porn or no porn.

Due to the

a) total inability to measure this (child abuse records show A-1 and B-1, child porn arrests don't really say anything because you don't know if they're abusers or not (could be any of the four categories), or how this affects the statistical likelyhood of being arrested and so on and so on).
b) the incentives to not answer truthfully (Me? Commit child abuse? Never! Never, I tell you!)
c) the inability to answer truthfully (no I wouldn't do that even if I looked at child porn... would I?)

I don't think we'll ever get a solid statistical answer to this question out of police records, censuses and other second-hand data. It would require an "Eye of God" view to get the real data.

And running a controlled experiment? Yeah right. For one it'd have to ensure that those that shouldn't have porn don't have it, which would require detailed personal surveilance. And at the same time, if they wanted to abuse children they'd have the opportunity to do so (and if they were abstaining from it because they were being surveilanced, the entire experiment is down the shitter. OTOH, if they knew they would get away with it for the same reason, it'd also wreck the correctness). Not to mention the idea of letting children knowingly be abused in the first place.

To summarize, you simply won't get a good statistical answer to this. Ever.

Kjella

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics...

[heironymouscoward]

"people looking at gay porn tend to have gay sex, and people looking at straight porn tend to have straight sex."

You surely meant to say: people who have straight sex prefer straight porn, and people who have gay sex prefer gay porn. People are simply not "converted" by porn. Sorry.

By the way, you might be interested to learn that lesbians prefer gay male porn. This pretty much answers the question of whether the porn is a cause or an effect. (Clue: it's not a cause.)

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics...

[Dalcius]

An interesting point this brings up. Do we convict people based on statistics now (well, yeah, of course, but let's play dumb for a bit and pretend the system is perfect)?

Are KKK ideals wrong?

One might say, "Yes, they foster hatred which in turn causes action in many people." But is the idea wrong or the action?

Kiddie porn is made by real people. These people should be reformed, or just locked up or otherwise restricted if necessary (notice I didn't use the word punish -- personal belief system at work).

But is viewing the result a crime in itself? Sure, it's worth of further investigation. But save anything else found, is viewing in itself a crime?

The true meaning of giving freedom to others is giving them everything including that which you don't agree with, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. Personally, I'd rather convict the KKK of murder than of thoughtcrime.

re: virus?

[ed.han]

the question is, how often do you upddate your virus definitions? aren't the vast majority of cases of hacked boxes out there older apps?

i would expect that any defense attorney will summon expert testimony to point out that porn spam is ridiculously common and the fact that it was deleted should mitigate its being found on your HD.

ed

Re:Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it rest with the person who took the pictures?

If society were concerned with actual justice, yes. However, anyone who feels that any major world power is concerned with actual justice should take a look at the docket on just about any judge's desk just about anywhere. Rich people still buy their way out of trouble, as always, and poor people still take it up the ass from the system, just like always. The people who benefit most from 'justice systems' these days are the lawyers. It may be more visibly out of control in the US, but it's still a problem elsewhere. When one's system of law is SO COMPLEX that only lawyers have any hope of understanding it, and they can't even agree on what it means, it is time to change that system. We need a system in which a person representing him or her self does not automatically have a fool for a client. I don't believe lawyers are *inherently* evil, I believe it is a function of their working environment.

Re:Whoever caused it to

[KillerHamster]

From the article:

"I know my son had a look at some iffy sites," he said. "He's a teenager."

I know who I'd question first.

You Must Be Joking...

[virg_mattes]

> So, using that as an example and considering how much more common computers are in every day life than cars (know anyone how hasn't driven in the past 12 months? Now, know anyone who hasn't touched a computer in any way shape or form in the same time period?), why don't we have compulsory "basic operation" licsenses for computers?

You need to get out of the area you live in a bit more if you think that computers are more common in everyday use than cars.

> Think about it this way; Truck drivers are forced to undergo rigerous driving training (in the form of logged experience and lessons from qualified staff) before they're allowed to sit for their license and operate the tool they use to make a living. Builders are required to undergo at least two years of apprenticeship plus TAFE (think community college) courses before they can build any type of large structure. People who pilot any form of marine vessel are required to sit a test and get their license before they can command a vessel capable of going over a certain speed/weighing more than a certain tonnage. Hell, even short-order *COOKS* are required to undergoe some form of food preperation and service training before most places will give them a job.

Um, in every single one of the cases you cite, the cost of failure can be fatal. Operating a computer that doesn't run fatally dangerous operations does not carry the same cost by a huge factor, and those who run computers that do run that level of risk (control systems in hospitals, aircraft guidance, and the nuclear power industry, for examples) are indeed licensed and trained for their work. You can't seriously consider that even something as awful as wiping out someone's life savings stands on the same level as killing them in a truck accident. This is apples-to-oranges comparison.

> And yet companies all across the world will hire someone into a position that required daily, extended user of office type computers at the drop of a hat. At best you can expect "Can you touch type? DO you know Microsoft Word?" Hell, even that's only mostly for secretaries!

If that's all the job requires, what's the motivation for demanding more? You can pay an IT person good money to protect your system from users who don't know more than touch typing, so why make everybody learn stuff they don't need to do their jobs?

> A basic computer competency test should be *compulsory* before anyone is allowed to purchase a computer.

Elitist drivel. You don't have the right to demand any given level of competence from anyone who can afford to own a computer. It's not your business. And no, not even when their system gets infected and attacks yours is it your business. When your lawn gets dandelions from upwind, do you cry out for people to be forced to get a lawn care license or not have one? Get real.

Let's go through your points one at a time:

> 1.) Basic hardware in a computer (stops the old "my cupholder is broken and the tv wont start!" support call when whats actually happened is that they've kicked out a cord at the back)

Basic hardware changes so fast that anyone who isn't actively using the knowledge will quickly have their knowledge turn obsolete. If you think not, then I ask, how many personal computers had CD-ROM drives, or any need for the term "gigabyte", only eight years ago?

> 2.) Basic use of word processing, database, presentation and spreadsheet software (by basic I mean VERY basic. "This is a spreadsheet. It does simple simple calculations, like so")

Why would someone who doesn't use these functions need to learn them? Spreadsheets aren't basic if I never need to use them. Presentation software? What does your short order cook or police officer or teenage gamer need with that? Get out of your boardroom and recognize that you don't have the right to define what's basic for everyone, and that "basic" needs aren't the same for everyone.

Re:You Must Be Joking...

[stwrtpj]

When your lawn gets dandelions from upwind, do you cry out for people to be forced to get a lawn care license or not have one? Get real.

No, but in many neighborhoods in the US controlled by a covenant, you can complain to the HOA (Homeowners Association) and get them fined. In some places you can complain to the city for violating nuisance ordinances and get them fined that way.

Maybe that's an idea: you don't need a license to operate a computer, but you can damn well get fined if you fail to secure your PC and someone manages to damage someone else's PC via an attack launched from it.

Windows Messenger...

[pr0ntab]

is a service that runs on top of windows rpc. That (ports 135-137) should have been blocked by your ISP! Why they are letting windows RPC traffic through to residential customers is beyond me. Don't tell me people are sharing their drives over the internet, because that's fucking retarded. Some broadband ISPs are such complete idiot farms.

The messenger service is actually useful if all the machines on your protected net are under your control. You can send popups to people in a controlled fashion without IM software. If a person is logged out, they'll get the message(s) the next time they log in.

But if he's the only machine on his connection, well that's not a big deal

Re:I posted this as a blog entry a few weeks ago..

[fizbin]

I do wonder what kind of krakk kokane your software engineering staff has to be smoking for them ship an operating system that, in its default configuration, allows an unauthenticated tcp message from any random spot on the internet to display a dialog on a client workstation, but, as I mentioned earlier, that's not where I want to go today.

Probably the same stuff that was being smoked near any place shipping a unix operating system - remember "talk"? The internet used to be a much calmer place. (Actually, I haven't done a default install of any linux distro in ages - does redhat install talk-server by default?)

Now, had you added "in 2003" or "in this day and age" to your comment ... maybe. But being open to messages from the outside by default has a long and proud history.

Re:Virus?

[Hentai]

Yes.

And just like the Committee on Anti-Communist Activities, or the Salem witch trials, the answer will continue to be "yes" until a sufficient number of high-profile people have been inconvenienced by it. Right now, the witch-hunt is under control. But like all fires, it will quickly go wild, and the frenzy of the mob will take over - at which point, there will be a few nasty incidents until someone powerful and influential is damaged, at which point the tides will change and we'll all realize what a mess we've created.

Then we'll find a new name and a new face for it and start the whole process over again.

It's a good thing.

[neema]

I'm happy courts give leighway on arguments like this, even with the potential for abuse in mind. It's like the idea of pleading insanity, or temporary insanity. Most people don't like the idea because what they've seen on TV, but in actual statistics, as far as the US is concerned, the plea is rarely used and it's even more rare for it to be accepted.

Same idea with computers. While an insanity plea means you couldn't control your mind, the virus plea means you couldn't control your computer, and it's totally plausible. I just bought a new laptop and was browsing through some sites, being bombarded with pop-ups. I was going to click a button, but the pop-ups kept... well, popping up, and just as I went to click the button, a pop-up sprung up and I clicked yes on that instead. (This was before I could install Mozilla or anything else to get around that kind of situation.) Almost immediately, there was all this porn-ware and spyware installed on my machine. I used ad-aware and spybot but, still not satisfied with the clean-up job, just formatted and reinstalled. The average user would not have even heard of ad-aware or spybot or thing that it was that big of a deal.

Use the computer of a friend of yours who is an average computer user. Downloads music, checks e-mail, chats... that kind of thing. Run ad-aware or spybot on their computers. When I do this to help clean up friends computers and improve performance, the programs find something like a thousand files that are in suspicion. Sure, it'd be great if they could be more educated about the situation, but the education isn't readily avalible unless you're looking for it. To compare the use of a computer to driving a car is absurd. The system for licenses is very organized and infractions can clearly be observed, and then punished, as they're in public. You drive outside so it's relatively easy to make sure you're doing the right thing and even then, not everyone who doesn't signal as they change lanes or stop at red lights gets caught. Now image trying to apply such a thing to people while they're in the privacy of their own home.

A solution (maybe it's temporary) will be to hear these exceptions in court and I could only hope that further courts will follow such examples.

Re:Just out of interest...

[0111 1110]

Is it illegal for a minor to download sexual pictures of people his or her own age?

It is indeed. Otherwise the mere presence of a male teenager in a household would excuse anyone else living there of any ViewingCrime. What is even more strange is that a 16 year old guy is not even allowed to take naked photos of his 16 year old girlfriend. If she were in an even slightly sexually suggestive pose and possibly even if she weren't, he could go to prison for quite a while.

Also, if there were an age limit below which it were legal to possess "child porn", imagine the absurdity when, after a couple of years, the 16 year old guy wants to keep the nude photos of his girlfriend from when she was 16. Or maybe he just forgot about them on his hard drive. Now that he is 18 and a full legal adult (in the US at least), he would be prosecuted as an adult for the heinous crime of possessing child pornography.

Two 13 year olds having sex or just being naked in the same room may or may not be illegal depending on the state, but as soon as one of those 13 year olds takes a photo of the other one, it is indeed a very serious crime.

All of this pretzel logic is in the name
of "protecting the children" however. So it's ok. Sometimes I am just so astonished by the stupidity of our species.

Re:Virus?

[0111 1110]

Are you saying that most people like to look at kiddie porn?

If you define kiddie porn as any sexually suggestive photo of a female under the age of 18 (the legal definition), then yes. If you define it as the same type of photo of a female under the age of 11 (the pre-pubescent, almost boyish look), then I would say no.

Everyone seems to have their own definition of "too young". Forget about how bad most guys are at actually being able to differentiate the photo of a 14 or 15 year old from on 18 year old in real life. Of course, some people are very good at guessing people's ages.

About his future life...

[xyvimur]

This case tainted him forever. He'd lost his personal life, probably most of relatives turned away from him. It doesn't matter that he wasn't guilty. At least two types of crimes you can be accused and that will ruin your life whatever the outcome is. I mean peadophilia and rape. For many it will be enough that he was accused, no matter what was the decision of court. It's worse than shit under your shoe...
On the other hand he should be grateful that case ended this way, if he would gone to prison - many `nice' people there would take `care of him'.

Re:Virus?

[Dalcius]

Eh, I don't think so.

You've missed the whole point. AOL is easy to use on the surface, but no typical AOL user is going to be able to tell you what happens when he enters an AOL keyword and presses enter.

A computer is not like monopoly, or a dishwasher, or a screwdriver. A computer is a gateway to an insane number of tools, all of which function in different ways. To use a computer, you can't expect to learn it overnight just as you don't learn to drive a car (another complex task) overnight. To understand what a computer is doing is much analogous to understanding how a car works: very few people actually know.

Even hardcore developers accidentally leave security holes in programs they design, how can we expect a mere user to take responsibility for his box if someone else hijacks it? If someone steals your car and runs someone over, is it your fault now?

Re:Virus?

[Alsee]

his daughter may have had a vendetta against him because he molested her

Maybe he molested his daughter?? Maybe he was commiting acts against children?? You just pulled those MAYBEs out of your ass! There wasn't a single word in the article to suggest any such thing.

You're on a fucking Which Hunt!

Pardon my languge. I don't generally write gratutious profanity on my posts, but I am completely flabberghasted that someone would just make up such things and essentially call the prosecution negligent for not locking him up.

so i could blame "the evil hackers" if it came down to it. Possibly he was doing the same thing with much more sinister acts.

POSSIBLY. Yeah, we better convict him because it's POSSIBLE he's guilty! Why waste time trying to proove he's guilty? We Must Protect the Children! KIDDY PORN! KIDDY PORN! We must convict this pervert! Even if he's innocent! Yeah, that's it! We need to convict him especially if he's innocent! We need to send a message to those perverts!

-

Re:Good idea!

[untaken_name]

That's not true. If we suddenly deregulated driving I bet hundreds of people who now don't drive would start driving.

Why would you suppose that? Would they suddenly be able to afford a car? It isn't like you have to be Einstein to pass a DMV test, and once you pass you never have to do it again. Wow, that's real effective.

Parents might start letting their kids on the road at 14.

If their child is mature enough, why shouldn't they? If the child isn't, they're legally responsible. So why shouldn't they have to actually be PARENTS? The government can't watch over us and make all our decisions. Besides, nothing's stopping the kid from taking the car joyriding, just because they don't have a license. I really don't see what benefit you get, other than having a pretty much mandatory ID, even though our founding fathers didn't want anything like that to exist. I guess they didn't know what they were doing.

In my opinion we should close those loopholes. The problem is not that we are trying to regulate guns, its that we are only doing a half-assed job. They're simply trying to apease the NRA and the anti-gun groups at the same time.

In Britain, they've closed the loopholes I mentioned and most of the others, as private gun ownership is almost unheard of, legally. However they still have plenty of gun crime and gun deaths. In Switzerland, where guns are not regulated in any way, save that each household with a male of a certain age *must* have one, they have very little gun crime, and the majority of that is caused by people who are transients, and not residents of Switzerland. So, the heavily regulated country has problems with gun violence, the unregulated one (where gun education is mandatory in public school) has very very little. Yet you continue to argue that regulation is the answer. It doesn't make logical sense.

What makes those laws unenforceable?

Whenever a person gets ticketed for speeding, there are many many many more who are not ticketed. Many people speed, and yet they do not get daily tickets, and they have no reasonable expectation of being ticketed during any one violation. That is what makes it unenforceable.
I once had a state trooper who was teaching a defensive driving class tell me that you should go up to 5 miles over the speed limit if the traffic around you is. That's a freaking law enforcement officer telling his defensive driving class to break the law. It would be like making spoons illegal. How on Earth would you expect to enforce that law? No one would fear having one because they would have no reasonable expectation of being caught. It would be an unenforceable law.

I might get away with murder too, but that doesn't mean it's an uneforceable law.

The vast majority of murders are solved. Can you say that for the vast majority of speeders? Not with a straight face. Murderers have a reasonable expectation of being caught. Murder is not often overlooked, while speeding is overlooked EXTREMELY often. Ask yourself this: on any given day, are you more likely to get away with something like: not having a dog license, speeding, not having a ham radio license, not having a driver's license, not having insurance; or are you more likely to get away with murder? I would rather have cops out looking for murderers than people with no dog license, if it's all the same to you.

That's all fine and dandy if you're a millionaire. But what happens if you do $100,000 damage to me an my property? How are you going to compensate me?

If I didn't have the cash on hand, I'd probably go buy insurance. My problem isn't with the insurance industry, per se, it's with the state telling me that by law, I MUST take the gamble that is insurance. If I could change the law to read: You must be able to show proof of insurance or other proof that you are solvent, instead of 'you must have insurance period point blank' that would be fine with me. However, I don't see any reason why driving is