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

[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: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: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: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

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..

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."

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

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

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: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.

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?

[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!

-