Slashdot Mirror


Fighting Porn Vs. Ruining Innocent Lives

After news of the conviction of a substitute teacher for endangering minors — because porn popups, possibly initiated by adware, had appeared on her computer during class — comes the even sadder story of 16-year-old Matt Bandy. His family's life was turned upside-down when he was charged in Arizona with possession of child pornography, even though the family computer was riddled with spyware and Trojans. After the intervention of ABC's 20/20, Matt finally was allowed to plead to a lesser charge (namely, sharing a Playboy magazine with friends) and just barely escaped being labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.

815 comments

  1. Sad but true... by winkydink · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you don't keep your security stuff up to date, especially on a Windows machine, you have no idea what it's being used for.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Sad but true... by alshithead · · Score: 1

      "If you don't keep your security stuff up to date, especially on a Windows machine, you have no idea what it's being used for."

      Even if Windows users keep their box up to date they have no clue as to what it is being used for. It's the same as a dishwasher. My dishwasher washes my dishes. My computer gives me email and internet. Most people have no clue that their computer can do a WHOLE lot more if they don't take proper precautions. Even more important is that they don't know what the proper precautions are!

      Until MS (and others) can deliver a box loaded with an OS and apps that automatically set to a fairly secure point, we will continue to have these problems. Unfortunately, this is the nature of the beast. You have end users who know NOTHING, and bad folks who know a lot more. That's going to be more of problem with *nix flavors too. Even if more/most users switch from MS, that just means the bad people will concentrate in a different direction. There are security problems with *nix and Apple too. They are fewer but then again the bad guys concentrate on finding MS issues.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    2. Re:Sad but true... by ShimmyShimmy · · Score: 1

      Well, the pendulum could swing both ways. I really can't remember the last time any adware popped up child porn. I would say that kind of content is usually ...deliberately searched for. The spyware/vulnerabilities situation could all just be a clever excuse.

          Emphasis on clever. You really could get away with a whole lot by playing the dumb card. Busted for hacking into your school's computer to change grades? "Oops must have left it unprotected, I guess someone else broke in using my computer. Computers are so complicated and confusing." On that note, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge has the same standpoint, and would be unlikely to be able to call bullshit.

          As for now, until there is a surefire way to distinguish between "yeah the... uh, spyware did it. yeah.", and actual cases of innocence, I say the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. Clearly, having a vulnerable computer is an advantage to the user; plausible excuse. But oh well, Vista is coming out soon. Maybe we've seen the end of rediculously insecure operating systems (ahem).

      --
      Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
      "Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
    3. Re:Sad but true... by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      > Well, the pendulum could swing both ways. I really can't remember the last time any adware popped up child porn.

      You're crossing your cases here. The substitute teacher convicted of endangerment, who argued that popups did the dirty deed, wasn't in trouble for child porn. In her case, it was regular porn, but displayed to minors. It's Matt Bandy who got in trouble over child porn, which was found on his PC when a search warrant was executed.

      Virg

  2. Save me from my internets by fatduck · · Score: 4, Informative
    The clueless parent:
    "It means that computers are not safe," said Jeannie Bandy. "I don't want to have one in my house. Under even under the strictest rules and the strictest security, your computer is vulnerable."
    The "internet expert" isn't much better:
    "If you have an Internet connection, high speed, through, let's say, your cable company, or through the phone company, that computer is always on, and basically you have an open doorway to the outside," said Tammi Loehrs. "So the home user has no idea who's coming into their computer."
    Or you could secure your wireless router and stop installing Top 100 Mouse Pointers!!!!.jpg.exe.

    Oh here's my personal favorite quote from TFA:
    ...toss innocents into a living hell intended solely for sexual predators.

    Admittedly the prosecution's behavior in this case is excessive, especially the part about pleading to an obscenity charge for a Playboy magazine, but it doesn't have to be another excuse to spread FUD about the evil "here there be dragons" internets.
    --
    Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
    1. Re:Save me from my internets by melikamp · · Score: 1

      I wonder how he got caught. Anyone has any info on that?

    2. Re:Save me from my internets by bckrispi · · Score: 4, Informative

      The 'bots' on his PC uploaded kiddie porn to a Yahoo Group. Yahoo notified the authorities with his IP address.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    3. Re:Save me from my internets by argle2bargle · · Score: 1

      "Admittedly the prosecution's behavior in this case is excessive, especially the part about pleading to an obscenity charge for a Playboy magazine"

      True.

      But what the article doesn't say, and what we can't be sure of, is was this kid looking at pictures of 16 year old girls his own age (child porn) or of 4 year old girls (child porn)

      If I was the prosecutor, if the kid was looking at girls his own age, I might let him slide. If he was looking at little kids, I'd throw every charge I could think of at him, including possession of a playboy.

      And as an occasional viewer of adult content(not child porn) how in the world can I tell if the girl I am looking at is 19 (legal) or 17 (illegal)

    4. Re:Save me from my internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what we can't be sure of, is was this kid looking at pictures at all

      Fixed that for you.

      I mean, the guy has an internet connection and gigs of pr0n, and he goes out and gets a Playboy? Nuff said.

    5. Re:Save me from my internets by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 5, Funny
      "And as an occasional viewer of adult content(not child porn) how in the world can I tell if the girl I am looking at is 19 (legal) or 17 (illegal)"
      Always stick to granny porn; you're flying safe there.
    6. Re:Save me from my internets by norton_I · · Score: 1
      The clueless parent:
              "It means that computers are not safe," said Jeannie Bandy. "I don't want to have one in my house. Under even under the strictest rules and the strictest security, your computer is vulnerable."


      That doesn't actually sound clueless. It looks as if you own a computer with an interent connection, there is a chance you will be charged with possesion of child pornography without having willfully aquired it. That sounds dangerous to me. You can take steps to prevent it with security software and smart behavior, but it is difficult to do so perfectly, and regardless that doesn't mean it is the victim's fault.

      If we start throwing people in jail for making and distributing malware and illegal spam, maybe this will stop. Not very practical due to the invasive survalence that would probably be required as well as the international jurisdiction issues, but it is an actual solution.
    7. Re:Save me from my internets by FrankieBaby1986 · · Score: 1

      This wouldn't be /. without the car analogy....
      Car vs Computer

      -Car is wonderful tool used to tavel to places by driving on roads
      -Computer can be used to get information by connecting to internet

      -Car can be dangerous and hurt other people in accidents, they require user responsibility and maintainence
      -Computer can be dangerous, is vulnerable to attack, etc, and requires user responsibility and maintainence

      -A license issued only after basic knowledge is demonstrated and is required to use cars on public roads and highways...
      -cars are also required to be inspected for maintainance issues regularly
      -A computer w/ internet can be bought by anybody with the financial means, irregardless of training.
      -the average computer's maintainance and upgrade needs are seldom adressed by the average user


      Now, I'm not sure if a license should be required in order to connect to internet or own a PC or anything, but perhaps more can be done about the ignorance of users, such as providing training to new users, or for ISP's to require users to pass a basic test on internet safety? any ideas?

      --
      ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
    8. Re:Save me from my internets by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And as an occasional viewer of adult content(not child porn) how in the world can I tell if the girl I am looking at is 19 (legal) or 17 (illegal)


      More percisely, how can you tell if she's turning 18 tommower or turned 18 yesterday? One of those makes you a sex offender for life, the other is perfectly legal. Both are equally moral in the eyes of the majority, but try to get the laws changed in any way other than more harsh and people think you're some kind of kid rapist.

      And if you wanted a real answer, look for 18 USC 2257 compliance. It at least gives you some kind of plausible denial (not that that will get you far in court). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and_ Obscenity_Enforcement_Act if you want to read more about 18USC2257, but basically it requires overly strict data retention policies and puts porn stars at high risk.

      On a related note, if you google for "18 usc 2257" like I just did to find the wikipedia link, you find plenty of sites like met-art and all the other legal-but-looks-like-jailbait sites. Funny how those are legal, but a 17.999 year old who looks 25 is illegal because "pedophiles get enticed by it" or some such drivel.

      I should post this anonymously, but meh, more people need to speak out.
      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    9. Re:Save me from my internets by sbben · · Score: 1

      Top 100 Mouse Pointers!!!!.jpg.exe Thats ridiculous! We all know you cannot have exclamation points in a filename
    10. Re:Save me from my internets by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1
      "And as an occasional viewer of adult content(not child porn) how in the world can I tell if the girl I am looking at is 19 (legal) or 17 (illegal)"

      All US based porn sites must have a record of the identity of all their models, and will have an 18 U.S.C. 2257 Compliance Notice, with the address of one or more custodians of records, who hold the record proving the age and identity of all the models.

      so if a site has the notice, you can be sure it is ok, tho, that doesn't mean it isn't legit if it doesn't have a notice, it could just mean it's based outside the US.

    11. Re:Save me from my internets by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 0

      I would actually prefer idiots didn't own computers to begin with. There should be some sort of licensing requirements, like driver's licenses, for people to own and operate computers. This would solve SO MANY problems...

    12. Re:Save me from my internets by carl0ski · · Score: 3, Funny

      A car is metophocially almost 100% identical to a computer
      The car is also prone to attack
      Auto theft has varying levels of success


      Leaving the keys in the ignition (no password)
      Leaving the keys in the ignition and doors unlocked(no password, no firewall)
      Crappy ignition (bad password)
      Crappy ignition, doors unlocked (bad password, No Firewall)

      Anti-virus/adware (car alarm)
      Don't Forget the weakest point of a car is always its Windows

    13. Re:Save me from my internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admittedly the prosecution's behavior in this case is excessive, especially the part about pleading to an obscenity charge for a Playboy

      Would you trust a lawyer or politician that you never met before? You can't tell what their game is. Some of them will step on anyone to make their career, satisfy a quota, or earn some dirty money. It's a system where you can be a real crook and pass the blame, provided you have a sharp mind. To win you have to beat someone rather than being right.

    14. Re:Save me from my internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
      I should post this anonymously, but meh, more people need to speak out.

      Tell me, "irc.goatse.cx troll", do you have a good reputation to protect?

    15. Re:Save me from my internets by AnyoneEB · · Score: 3, Funny
      I should post this anonymously, but meh, more people need to speak out.

      This just in: Slashdot user irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) cares about his public image.

      Seriously, you make good points, but with that comment when posting with that nick you were asking for it.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    16. Re:Save me from my internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats ridiculous! We all know you cannot have exclamation points in a filename Remember that Windows filenames are properly Unicode. You CAN use characters 01C3 (Latin Letter Retroflex Click a.k.a. Exclamation Mark, Latin Letter) and 203C (Double Exclamation Mark).

    17. Re:Save me from my internets by unitron · · Score: 1
      "I wonder how he got caught. Anyone has any info on that?"

      Actually he didn't get caught, the computer did.

      The family made the mistake of talking to the police before they talked to a lawyer and once the kid admitted looking at "Playboy"-type images the cops donned their blinders and got their Nancy Grace on.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    18. Re:Save me from my internets by griffjon · · Score: 1

      I'm all in favor of the "here be dragons" Internet - maybe AOL will finally re-disconnect itself from it.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    19. Re:Save me from my internets by budgenator · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What really rots your socks is he could have had a picture of a girl 17 and older than him, flashing her tits, and not only would it be child porn, but they could easily try the 16 year old as an adult!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:Save me from my internets by LoveGoblin · · Score: 3, Funny
      Always stick to granny porn; you're flying safe there.

      "Ah,' said Arthur, "this is obviously some strange usage of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of.'

    21. Re:Save me from my internets by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "All US based porn sites must have a record of the identity of all their models, and will have an 18 U.S.C. 2257 Compliance Notice, with the address of one or more custodians of records, who hold the record proving the age and identity of all the models."

      That's all well and good for those that actually pay for porn...(people actually do that?)

      But, what of the free stuff that is out there and tons of people access? USENET, bittorrent, etc....you often really don't know what your downloading till you get it, assemble it and view it...

      There's nothing wrong with getting legal porn this way...but, what if you get some bad stuff...and delete it immediately....if you got caught at that moment...legally, you're toast.

      The law, unfortunately, doesn't seem to take 'intent' into consideration at all...accidents are reasons to brand you a sex offender for life?

      Just doesn't seem right...and seeing all the DA's out there hungry for a headline...they never seem to give an inch. Hell...look at what the Duke guys are still going through...with no case to really be held against them. Speaking of course...about overzealous DA's....but, same thing happens with all crimes like this...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    22. Re:Save me from my internets by MadAhab · · Score: 1

      well put. i'd mod up if i could

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    23. Re:Save me from my internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "irregardless" is not a word. If it were, it would mean the opposite of what you think it means. You want "regardless" i.e. "without regard." What you're saying is "not without regard." Dig? You're confused by a similar sounding word, I bet -- "irrespective." Try that one next time.

    24. Re:Save me from my internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ellipses and dashes are not what you think they are.

    25. Re:Save me from my internets by pyite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There should be some sort of licensing requirements, like driver's licenses

      Yes, because drivers' licenses solve the problem of bad drivers. Please wake up and realize that in most of things we license (e.g. driving, vehicle registration, firearms, building permits), the licenses are only a tool for the government to collect money and serve no useful purpose.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    26. Re:Save me from my internets by mgiuca · · Score: 1
      "It means that computers are not safe," said Jeannie Bandy. "I don't want to have one in my house. Under even under the strictest rules and the strictest security, your computer is vulnerable."

      Well the sad thing is, computers aren't "safe". No matter how hard you beef up security, there's always a "danger" that "harmful" materials will pop up or seep onto your computer somehow.

      I use the terms in quotes because the only "danger" here is revoltingly ridiculous, paranoid laws which transform something a bit wrong which you might close and think nothing more about, into a crime which can, as we've seen with this guy and the teacher a few days ago, literally ruin your entire life.

      As with a lot of things, the law is far more fucked up than the "crimes" themselves.

    27. Re:Save me from my internets by anagama · · Score: 2
      paraphrasing: car dangerous, computer dangerous, suck it up.
      Yeah -- your car analogy sucks. This situation applied to cars: if without your permission or knowledge, someone takes your car, then rams an empty cop car with it, and finally runs away never to be seen again, you go to prison for the rest of your life. Sound remotely fair? That's essentially what nearly happened to this kid.

      And before all the "keys in the ignition blah blah blah", even if you left it unlocked and running, that still wouldn't make you a party to the "crashing into a cop car" crime. Anywhere. Not even in AZ.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    28. Re:Save me from my internets by wordsnyc · · Score: 1

      Of course "irregardless" is a word. It's apparently a word you don't like, and it's considered by many not to be acceptable in Standard English, but many dialects of English use multiple markers for negation. As for the "logic" of the word, English is not mathematics, and two negatives do not equal a positive.

      --
      Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
    29. Re:Save me from my internets by Minwee · · Score: 1

      This is obviously a definition of the word 'safe' with which I was not previously acquainted.

    30. Re:Save me from my internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the story. A cop who routinely checks "Lover's Lane" came across a car with a young man in the front seat and a young woman in the backseat. The young man is reading a book, and the young lady is knitting a sweater (change that to whatever you want, Anyway...). The cop asks the young man, "How old are you?" The young man replies, "23 sir." The cop then asks, "How old is the young lady in the back?" The young man looks at his watch and says "In about twelve minutes she will be 18".

      As funny as that story could be, depending on who you are, it is almost dead on. Last time I checked, in the UK you can have naked pictures of yourself taken and published when you are 16. There are even books in my local library in which one of the models was sixteen and her breasts were showing. Plus many of the UK printed photography books that have been around for 20+ years. Now here in the U.S., 18 is the age you have to be in order to legally have a naked picture of yourself taken. Back in the seventies I believe the law was "clarified" as the legal age being 18. Before that "clarification", I believe a few magazines were photographing their models at age 17 and not publishing the pictures until they turned 18. I believe a few Playboy Playmates were photographed this way. Usually it was only a matter of a few weeks between the shoot and when they turned 18.

      Now in some jurisdictions here in the U.S. the age of consent is 17 for sex, but not for a naked picture. I am told constantly by people aged 17-23 that the age of 17 is legal in Illinois. I cannot find proof of that and have stayed away from 17 year old women just in case. (Note: this was when I was 23-28.)

      If you watch some of the "Hustler's Barely Legal" movies that are out, you will see many girls who are freshly 18. Some of whom turned 18 that same day. If you watch some of the behind the scenes stuff occasionally you will see a birthday cake or something similar in the background.

    31. Re:Save me from my internets by modecx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Always stick to granny porn; you're flying safe there.

      And who's to assume these internet grannies aren't indeed 15 year old girls with strange rapid-aging diseases??!?!?!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    32. Re:Save me from my internets by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      On a related note, if you google for "18 usc 2257" like I just did to find the wikipedia link, you find plenty of sites like met-art and all the other legal-but-looks-like-jailbait sites.
      Oh, great!, so go hunting down information on the porn law, and you risk getting arrested and charged as a child pornster. (It's not like you're likely to remember where those pictures came from -- which is what you're gonna have to do to prove that those nymphettes are really over 18).
      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    33. Re:Save me from my internets by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1
      As for the "logic" of the word, English is not mathematics, and two negatives do not equal a positive.
      What, you never heard of a double negative? For example, "I will not do nothing" actually does mean "I will do something." So in that respect, yes, English is like mathematics.

      Of course, if English is not your first language, nor one that you studied with any depth, then your statement, and the (admittedly mild) ignorance it displays, is quite forgivable.
    34. Re:Save me from my internets by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right.

      --
    35. Re:Save me from my internets by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      And who's to assume these internet grannies aren't indeed 15 year old girls with strange rapid-aging diseases??!?!?!
      Or gobs or latex applied by one of those Hollywood make-up sfx artists ? After all pr0n grannies must be highly experienced professionals after all that time and have to come (ha ha) at a premium. It must be less expensive to grab a newcomer and make her up.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    36. Re:Save me from my internets by 5of0 · · Score: 1

      paraphrasing: computer yours, thief's punishment yours. car yours, thief's punishment not yours. Your analogy sucks. Look on my logic, ye coders, and despair! No, your argument sucks.
      If lawmakers and such were as ignorant and apathetic about cars as they were about computers, your scenario could well happen. (Although going to jail for life is a little extreme, it would be more equivalent to a bad DUI.)
      And this is precisely the problem with the law - lawmakers, relatively ignorant of computers and the internets, treat computers as if they are always under the user's control. Look at the reasoning:
      If someone takes control of your computer (presumably because you didn't protect it) and does damage with it, it's your fault.
      If someone takes control of your vehicle (presumably because you didn't protect it) and does damage with it, it's not your fault.
      Now IANAL, so I'm not sure of what kind of laws there are about responsibility in cars and such. In addition to the ignorance and apathy, another problem is that car thieves leave fingerprints, clips on security cameras, hair, DNA, what-have you. We know how to look for and deal with such evidence. Cops and the legal system aren't experienced with the tracks that computer hackers leave (depending on how careful they are), so they are hard-pressed to track down the criminals. Someone has to pay, so using their (and the general public's) ignorance to their advantage, they just blame the user for leaving their comptuer unsecured.
      --
      You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
    37. Re:Save me from my internets by Eivind · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's even better in most of the world. You see, age of consent tends to be lower, on the average something like 16 in most parts of the world.

      So, if you meet a 16 year old and the two of you decide to fuck, it's all perfectly good fun. But if the same 16-year-old sends you a nudie-pic of herself you better delete it real quick: Posession of childporn is a criminal offence, and the definition is "under 18", despite the age of consent being 16.

      Hell, in principle you could get convicted for posession of child-porn for posessing a nudie pic of *yourself* at age 17, even if you *are* 17. There's no exception in the law for people of similar age, or for pictures of *yourself*.

      Dumb is just the first letter of it.

    38. Re:Save me from my internets by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      There's nothing wrong with getting legal porn this way...but, what if you get some bad stuff...and delete it immediately....if you got caught at that moment...legally, you're toast.
      Actually, there's as much wrong getting pr0n that way as there is getting music that way. It remains evil copyright infringement by horny Internet pirates whichever way you look at it (except for the home made stuff I guess).

      Whether you consider it wrong enough to, uh, soften your resolve, is of course a matter between you and your conscience. :)

      Regarding the downloading of the wrong type of content, apparently in the US even if it randomly assembles on your hard drive through the action of cosmic rays (which I suppose could be theoretically possible although somewhat unlikely to put it lightly), you would definitely be guilty and therefore an evil criminal and sent to pound me in the ass federal prison.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    39. Re:Save me from my internets by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      > Yes, because drivers' licenses solve the problem of bad drivers

      In my country (Germany, and most of Europe) it does, surprisingly.
      But getting the license is not easy at all and costs around 1200-1500 Euro (don't know exactly, I got mine before Euro kicked in).
      Of course, you can also drive a car without license, but if they catch you, chances are good you end-up in jail.
      You can buy a car without a driving license, though - same as a computer.
      So, while I'm a supporter of the "PC driver's license", I'm ready to admit that it may be a bit difficult to enforce.
      OTOH, e.g. complicated tax-laws don't relieve people from paying them - you've got to hire somebody to do it for you, if you can't do the paperwork yourself.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    40. Re:Save me from my internets by msormune · · Score: 1

      That's easy. Come on over to Finland where the age of consent is 16.

    41. Re:Save me from my internets by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      In my country (Germany, and most of Europe) it does, surprisingly.

      In my country (America), unless you live in a handful of big cities (New York, LA, Washington, Chicago) then odds are that you can't make a living, buy groceries or do much of anything without a car. A $1,500 - $2,000 licensing process would ruin a lot of livelihoods.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    42. Re:Save me from my internets by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      > In my country (America), unless you live in a handful of big cities
      > (New York, LA, Washington, Chicago) then odds are that you can't
      > make a living, buy groceries or do much of anything without a car.

      I've heard of that.
      Admittedly, Europe is more densely populated and things are much "closer together".
      But the lack of public-transport (inter-state) will seriously harm your economy, once oil gets so expensive that only the rich can buy it (which is how it all began - gasoline was formerly only available in pharmacies).
      Building towns where two shops are 500m apart (and next to nothing in between) also doesn't help.

      > A $1,500 - $2,000 licensing process would ruin a lot of livelihoods.

      Well, that will be the least problem, then.

      In the end, we all get the politicians we deserve.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    43. Re:Save me from my internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when has logic stood in the way of making government bigger? How many more years will it take before we realize that justice is NOT the goal of the power elite -- clearly, the goal is more revenue and more power over the people. What else could it possibly be?

      What other explanation is there for the US government of today dwarfing the US government of only 100 years ago in every respect, especially revenue per population and power over the people?

      Does justice require exponential growth of government power, as the power elite would have you believe, or can you smell the scam?

    44. Re:Save me from my internets by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      But the lack of public-transport (inter-state) will seriously harm your economy, once oil gets so expensive that only the rich can buy it (which is how it all began - gasoline was formerly only available in pharmacies).

      Then we'll find another source of mobile energy. I welcome oil becoming expensive because it will force people to adopt alternatives that aren't as nasty to the environment. Hydrogen, fuel cells, battery electric vehicles, etc, etc, etc. They will all become more affordable and mainstream. In the mean time anything that encourages people to buy hybrids instead of SUVs is a good thing.

      Building towns where two shops are 500m apart (and next to nothing in between) also doesn't help.

      You can make that argument for urban sprawl but at a certain point it ceases to be valid. Have you ever been to the rural United States? Or even rural Europe? I stayed at a Tuscan Villa a few years back. We were about 5-8km from the nearest town. Now think about America -- there are rural farming communities that are 30 - 50km from anything resembling civilization. How do you get by in such a place without personal transportion (i.e: automobiles)? You can't buy groceries, you can't go to work, you can't visit friends, etc, etc, etc.

      Even ignoring the cultural impact, the automobile is critical to daily American life. I'd make the argument that it's critical to a large number of Europeans as well. Does this mean that I'm advocating against research into renewable/carbon netural automobiles? Hardly. But I have a hard time picturing America or Canada without cars in the next hundred years.

      Anyhow, how does making the licensing process really expensive weed out bad drivers? All it does is ensure that most of the bad drivers will be rich. In any case you are more likely to have your identity stolen then you are of dying in a car accident.

      In the end, we all get the politicians we deserve.

      What does that have to do with anything?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    45. Re:Save me from my internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as an occasional viewer of adult content(not child porn) how in the world can I tell if the girl I am looking at is 19 (legal) or 17 (illegal)

      I'm posting anonymously partly because I can't remember my password and am too lazy to use the lost password form and partly because my account name contains my real name and, while I have no connection with anything related to child porn or anything illegal for that matter, slashdot posts are permanent and get indexed by google etc. and since this post is related to child porn I don't want any kind of link between the subject at hand and my name (an ignorant potential employer googling my name and finding some forum post about child porn wouldn't look too good etc.)

      Anyway on to the topic at hand...

      1. While most adult production companies adhere to a script 18+ rule, it's a common misconception that sexually explicit content featuring models under 18 is automatically child porn. The criteria varies widely depending on jurisdiction, but in most places the "model" either needs to be pre-pubescent or appear to be under an arbitrary age around an average puberty mark (ie: 12 or 13 etc.)

      I do happen to know for a fact that in Germany the arbitrary age is 12. I know this because a German friend of mine who runs free adult sites had one of his sites investigated by the police. He was innocent and was never charged. But the police did seize his computers. When they interrogated him they told him that any models appearing on his web site that looked like they were under 12 would be investigated. Of course none of the models on his site were. All of them were over 18.

      2. Most, if not all, legal adult sites (even those not hosted in the US) provide information that complies with a US anti-child porn law called title. 18 sect. 2257. This information provides the contact info of the person responsible for storing all model release information for every model appearing on a site. Most free TGP sites do not carry this information themselves, but any responsible free adult webmaster will provide links to the information provided by their sponsor sites (the pay sites that provide them with the content). So look for a legal link on any free site that you surf. Find a good one that has both what you like and provides that legal information and only surf that site.

      Alternatively you can forget Internet porn all together and buy or rent DVDs, in person, instead from a local adult shop.

    46. Re:Save me from my internets by DrScotsman · · Score: 1

      Or to quote Dr. Nick on the matter

      Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
    47. Re:Save me from my internets by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 1

      "All US based porn sites must have a record of the identity of all their models, and will have an 18 U.S.C. 2257 Compliance Notice, with the address of one or more custodians of records, who hold the record proving the age and identity of all the models."

      "That's all well and good for those that actually pay for porn.."

      Just a few clarifications on 2257:

      1) It's not just "porn sites". It's every amateur cam-girl out there who flashes some tit on cam. By doing that, she's considered a "primary producer". Any site on which that image is displayed is considered to be a "secondary producer".

      2) Age and identity--including a photo ID showing home address--is required of *every* person who appears in pictures where there is "sexual material"--regardless of whether they're engaged in any of the "naughty stuff" or not.

      3) 2257 considers the place where the image is taken and/or stored to be a "primary place of business", and the address must be published. In addition, federal agents can enter the "place of business" once every 4 months, without a warrant & without warning "during normal business hours", and "examine" all equipment and files of the "business". In addition, they are allowed to use any and all "evidence of illegal activity discovered in the course of their visit." For 99.44% of the camgirls out there, the "place of business" is their home. 2257 allows federal agents to enter the woman's house without a warrant, dig through her computer files, and look around for anything else they want. They can do this every 4 months.

    48. Re:Save me from my internets by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      It's not principle, it's practice. I remember reading a story a while back about two girls, one 17 and the other 18 I believe. Took some pictures that I guess were too revealing, posted them on myspace. Both were tried as adults for some charge that amounts to trafficing child porn.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    49. Re:Save me from my internets by cdrudge · · Score: 1
      Actually, there's as much wrong getting pr0n that way as there is getting music that way. It remains evil copyright infringement by horny Internet pirates whichever way you look at it (except for the home made stuff I guess).
      Depends on what you are getting. If you are getting Hustler's Hot Honneies Volume 27 DVD Rip, then yeah it's copyright infringement. But many sites "advertise" by releasing still or short clips from there site onto Usenet/BitTorrent/et al. Then it's legal distribution.
    50. Re:Save me from my internets by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      But many sites "advertise" by releasing still or short clips from there site onto Usenet/BitTorrent/et al. Then it's legal distribution.
      Granted. That could potentially be (although it's not very clear whether those sites would actually allow redistribution of that content or just free leeching of it from their own servers, but for the sake of argument let's just say they allow it to freely propagate).

      However, if you look at the a.b.p.e groups, how much of the content (spam, or obvious ads excluded) falls in that category ? 5% maybe ? Be realistic, what is posted on Usenet is definitely "stolen" (note the quotes, as in "it's not really theft but blah blah") from the paying content sites. It doesn't really hurt them as such because it certainly drives a lot of traffic their way (at least all the people who can't figure out how to handle the yEnc files) and it's free advertising. But by the strict interpretation of the law, it certainly is bad.

      However the pr0n industry, which works quite a bit like the music industry, has long ago made the switch to the online distribution model (theaters are long gone, over the counter sales of films on physical supports are going down). And it works fine for them *without any DRM* !
      How about that...
      And they *still* make more cash than the mainstream studios. Probably also more than the gaming industry which also passed the film industry recently. And all that without any copy protection or artificial market segmenting (aka DRM) !

      Yet nobody will use them as an example because it's "distasteful" (as if anybody cared where the money came from). Granted a pr0n flick or photo shoot is easy and quick to setup on a shoestring budget whereas making a music record can take a bit more time. OTOH you can probably milk a record for revenue for much longer.

      This model won't work for regular movie making except in some very peculiar cases, but I think the music business could learn quite a few things from the pr0n people...
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    51. Re:Save me from my internets by gcatullus · · Score: 1

      Can we even apply the car anaolgy to running Linux?
      Running Linux (ignition lock out chip)

      Of course no one can steal a car with a transponder antitheft system, right?

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/carkey_pr .html/

    52. Re:Save me from my internets by cdrudge · · Score: 1
      However, if you look at the a.b.p.e groups, how much of the content (spam, or obvious ads excluded) falls in that category ? 5% maybe ?
      I don't know how much of it is. It's hard to tell. Many times it's a series from the same shoot and the site's logo is somewhere on the picture. If it was someone who was posting the site's contents, you'd think that there would be more (such as a site rip), but usually it's just a few shoots. That's why I would have presumed that it was more the content owners posting as "teasers" to get you to come to the site for more.

      From this I would also exclude people to repost the same pictures later. Yes technically they are copyright infringement. But I compare it to people who find a commercial funny and submit it to youtube. It's free advertising.
    53. Re:Save me from my internets by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      Yes technically they are copyright infringement. But I compare it to people who find a commercial funny and submit it to youtube. It's free advertising.
      Quite so. Which is also why there is so little DRM (afaik none, but then I'm not really that much of an expert either) on those files.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  3. Teh Internets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    are the tools of the devils.

  4. Windows Cost Of Ownership by codepunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now let's figure ruining your life into into that total cost of ownership.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:Windows Cost Of Ownership by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      It's a simple equation, really.

      Windows = Jail time

      And this is just for those playing at home. Imagine something along the lines of a Windows sysadmin

      (Windows x 125 users) = crap load of jail time

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Windows Cost Of Ownership by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      It's a simple equation, really.

      Windows = Jail time


            Or how about vengeful ex-girlfriend = Jail time.

            I went out on a date with a girl a couple of times (who I met online), and she was telling me how she had to report her last boyfriend to the police after she found child porn on his PC.

            And at some point mentioned either another boyfriend who she also had to report or had a friend who did. I don't know, I didn't stick around to nail down the details. :)

        rd

    3. Re:Windows Cost Of Ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and she was telling me how she had to report her last boyfriend to the police after she found child porn on his PC.

      Found, or put?

      There's a serious problem with laws that make it easy to lock people away without them even knowing something illegal has occurred.
    4. Re:Windows Cost Of Ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nothing. My ex- started in early on 'her mission'. And it only got worse after she started kicking around with those PervertedJustice.com loonies. From there it was a short step to eyeing me warily any time a schoolgirl got within sight.

    5. Re:Windows Cost Of Ownership by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      and she was telling me how she had to report her last boyfriend to the police after she found child porn on his PC.

      Found, or put?

      There's a serious problem with laws that make it easy to lock people away without them even knowing something illegal has occurred.


            After talking to her a couple of times, I would definitely say put, and you're right.

        rd

  5. Coming into your computer?? by NineNine · · Score: 4, Funny

    "If you have an Internet connection, high speed, through, let's say, your cable company, or through the phone company, that computer is always on, and basically you have an open doorway to the outside," said Tammi Loehrs."So the home user has no idea who's coming into their computer."

    Call me crazy, but can't this last issue be fixed by locking your door? If you keep your doors locked, then it's really not too hard to figure out who's coming into your computer. Although, I've got to say that coming into one's computer gives new meaning to Intarweb porn. Maybe she should teach her son that there are safer places to come.

    1. Re:Coming into your computer?? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Call me crazy, but can't this last issue be fixed by locking your door?

      Of course! But Windows only comes with a screen door, and very few people realize they need a better door, let alone know how to install one. And even if they did manage to get a better door installed, they wouldn't be able to figure out how to operate the lock!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Coming into your computer?? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Joe six pack doesn't know how to lock that door! My brother would not be as safe as it is today if I did not give him some pointers on how to setup his network. My Dad definitely would need me to be there when the high speed guy comes (if ever). The issue should be steered back to Microsoft for perpetuating a bad OS....Call me crazy, but Microsoft was the one who got everyone into clicking that big fat OK button. That and the holes big enough for a Mac Truck to go through.

      --

      Gorkman

    3. Re:Coming into your computer?? by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Call me crazy, but can't this last issue be fixed by locking your door?

      At the risk of the infamous lousy analogy, consider this:
      • You have a Masterlock brand deadbolt on your front door.
      • You head out for Las Vegas Friday night at 9:00 pm, lock your door.
      • Unbeknowst to you, at noon on Saturday a guy with a lockpick breaks in -- turns out your lock is easily cracked in 30 secs by anyone with a pick and 3 minutes to spend on google.
      • From the moment he breaks in up till 10:00 pm Sunday night, the guy sells crack to anyone who walks in the front door.
      • At 10:00 pm, he cleans up and clears out -- you'd never he had been there.
      • You arrive home on Monday at 7:00 am and lounge about resting before heading back to work the next day.
      • Tuesday afternoon, you come home from work and are arrested -- it seems some kid got pulled over for speeding and during the course of the traffic stop, the cops found the crack. Kid "cracks" in fear and fingers your address as the place where he bought the drugs.
      The question is, should you be convicted based merely on the fact that your house was used without your knowledge and permission to perform illegal activities? Sure you locked the door but any luser idiot would know that a Masterlock isn't true security. Why should it matter that you didn't actually sell crack -- it's plainly your fault for keeping such an insecure home.

      What we're talking about in the real case, is someone whose property was used to commit a crime and faced life in prison (9 consecutive 10 year sentences) merely because their property was used without their permission or knowledge. That's flat fricken wrong.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:Coming into your computer?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Saying Windows comes with a screen door is being generous. I would say it comes with a picture of a screen door and then brags about how "secure" that picture makes your computer.

    5. Re:Coming into your computer?? by Technician · · Score: 1

      But Windows only comes with a screen door,

      This is news to me. I noticed it came with wide open windows and lots of them. Where is this screen door you speak of? My desktop is full of windows and not one door.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    6. Re:Coming into your computer?? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy, but can't this last issue be fixed by locking your door? If you keep your doors locked, then it's really not too hard to figure out who's coming into your computer. Although, I've got to say that coming into one's computer gives new meaning to Intarweb porn. Maybe she should teach her son that there are safer places to come.

      Most people aren't geeks or hackers and don't know how vulnerable their computer is or how to lock it down.

      Falcon
    7. Re:Coming into your computer?? by SuluSulu · · Score: 1

      I don't think that many (if any) people believe that someone should be punished because someone stole their computer and used it to commit illegal acts. The hard part is how do you tell when someone is just faking it?

    8. Re:Coming into your computer?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      The question is, should you be convicted based merely on the fact that your house was used without your knowledge and permission to perform illegal activities? Sure you locked the door but any luser idiot would know that a Masterlock isn't true security. Why should it matter that you didn't actually sell crack -- it's plainly your fault for keeping such an insecure home.

      Here's my position:
      If Masterlock(tm) is a large and respected brand of door lock, but it can be shown that they knew that their locks were easily picked, and did little to fix them, I think that company should be criminally liable for the activities that resulted from their negligence.

      Similarly, if a software company can be shown to be grossly negligent about the security of their operating system software (because, for instance, their marketing department didn't want to remove "convenient" but dangerous features), that company should be criminally and civilly liable for all damages caused by their product.

    9. Re:Coming into your computer?? by tighr · · Score: 1

      Why should it matter that you didn't actually sell crack -- it's plainly your fault for keeping such an insecure home. Except that in this case, you don't take the Vegas vacation. You were home the whole time. This crack dealer picked your lock and made a master key, dispensed drugs in every nook and cranny of your house, and then told all of his crackhead friends that your house was where to get their fix. They come in to your house with spare keys that he had made for them at Home Depot, and pick up some crack. The cops then find out that your house was where everyone was getting this crack from.

      Maybe you were asleep, or playing a solitaire at the kitchen table, or maybe doing your taxes in the office. but you're home the whole time. Not that you're any more liable than in your example, but the fact is the crack is being hidden somewhere in your house the whole time.
    10. Re:Coming into your computer?? by anagama · · Score: 1

      look - a meatworld analogy to a situation in which the perp is invisible and leaves no trace and no common user would even know it was happening if he/she was using the computer at the same time the bad stuff was happening, requires the vacation or trip to the supermarket or what not. Or invisible alternate universe aliens. Maybe that would be better. Two people using the same house at the same time in alternate universes where the innocent person was unaware of the bad guy.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    11. Re:Coming into your computer?? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Similarly, if a software company can be shown to be grossly negligent about the security of their operating system software (because, for instance, their marketing department didn't want to remove "convenient" but dangerous features), that company should be criminally and civilly liable for all damages caused by their product.

      So which Linux maintainer can I sue ?

    12. Re:Coming into your computer?? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy, but can't this last issue be fixed by locking your door? If you keep your doors locked, then it's really not too hard to figure out who's coming into your computer.

      Yep and the penalty for not locking your door should be that you become a registered pedo. Fantastic logic.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    13. Re:Coming into your computer?? by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1
      That and the holes big enough for a Mac Truck to go through.
      Hmmm... Freudian slip there, buddy?
    14. Re:Coming into your computer?? by werewolf1031 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's the problem with your assertion: The product itself did not cause any harm. Rather, a third party -- not the product creator/vendor -- caused the harm through their direct action by exploiting weaknesses in the product.

      Now, I'm not defending the well-known security holes in Microsoft's operating systems. And I have no problem with the creator of a shoddy product being held liable for direct harm caused by their product. I do, however, have a problem with Entity A being held responsible for the actions of Entity B, under any circumstances, no matter who those respective entities may be -- individuals, corporations, whatever. Should Microsoft be held liable for the known security holes in their operating systems? Absolutely. Should they be held liable for how others with malicious intent exploit those holes? No.

      Addressing products that are less than 100% secure does not address the underlying problem: Human behavior. Obviously, if everyone were honest, there would be no need for physical locks, computer firewalls, and so on. However, because of the malicious actions of many people, we do need those security measures. And those measures can never, ever be perfect. No padlock, no steel door, no software firewall, no router -- anything that is designed to let "some" stuff through and block the rest -- can ever be 100% secure.

      If, as you state, "a software company can be shown to be grossly negligent about the security of their operating system software", then they should certainly be held liable for their own negligence, but not for the actions of others. Ever.

    15. Re:Coming into your computer?? by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      Of course! But Windows only comes with a screen door, and very few people realize they need a better door, let alone know how to install one. And even if they did manage to get a better door installed, they wouldn't be able to figure out how to operate the lock!

      And to make matters worse, there's this finely dressed silent gentleman who's going in and out; the bored, obnoxious guard they posted on the door asks them "hey, this guy wants to come in, he says it's serious", and they just keep saying "sure, whatever", because it interrupts their dinner and they can't be bothered to check it out.

      And when they realise what's going on, they just say "Burglars??? Look, I know what burglars look like, they've got scruffy clothes, a mask, a sack and a crowbar to pry windows open with. I didn't know burglars can dress well! Or come in the middle of the day. Or just ask nicely to get in. Nope."

      One of the biggest security problems is to stop intruders who act casually and look like what they're doing is perfectly normal and routine. "This is a very important upgrade, click OK to install..."

    16. Re:Coming into your computer?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software companies cannot be held responsible for your incompetence/frivolity. And no, you can't sue them even if they're the main reason for creating a havoc in your live, because they have invented (and actively promoting) one evil thing called EULA...

      About those crack sellers - I think investigators should persue the man who sold that stuff not the owner of the place where it was sold (analogy stays same for the child porn on your PC). The problem in this case is that (in PC' world) usually the owner IS aware there is something fishy going on and HESITATES to take any actions against it...

    17. Re:Coming into your computer?? by aeryn_sunn · · Score: 1

      I would say your analogy is a poor one, only because the crime of dealing drugs is treated differently than child porn possession... as far as I know, the crime of dealing is not a strict liability offense, meaning, the cops have to actually prove a number of elements of the crime, i.e. mens rea, that the person who is charged with dealing the drugs actually dealt them and lots of other pieces of evidence that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the absent homeowner was actually dealing drugs...

      Now compare this to possession of child porn, putting aside the fact that the whole charge of child porn unnecessarily inflames a jury's passions and clouds their judgment, I believe possession of child porn is a strict liability offense, meaning, the state does not have to prove mens rea (guilty state of mind)...or intent to possess said child porn...all the state has to do is prove that child porn came from your computer (or was on it) and since you own the computer, you are guilty...in other words, the standard of proof is something far less than reasonable doubt (although, prosecutors don't really admit this). The proscecutor's case is far easier for possession of child porn. He only has to show that someone uploaded it onto Yahoo (or downloaded it), get the IP address, trace it to your computer, then Viola! you are guilty unless you can prove, which is essentially "beyond a reasonble doubt" on your part that someone else did it. The problem being, if you are innocent, do you want to risk going in front of a jury to prove your innocence when the penalty for failure is 40 years or longer? Probably not, that is why prosecutors use the rather questionably constitutional long prison sentences for various child porn laws as bludgeons...

      Probably the biggest difference between all other crimes and possession of child porn is that with other crimes, you are innocent until proven guilty...while legislators have apparently turned that essential brick of our Constitution upsidedown when it comes to child porn possession in that you are guilty unless you prove yourself to be innocent.

      What has occurred is that the media and politicos have sold a "pedophile" epidemic to the general populace where one really does not exists...crimes do happen, that much is true...but with every horrible crime involving a pedophile that rapes and murders, the media has latched on turning such events as harbingers of an invasion of pedophiles which resulted in poorly thought out laws created from hysteria without any reasonable debate (see Megan's law, Jessica's law, et al). For example, there have been numbers of people being forced to register as sex offenders for acts that have nothing to do with pedophile crimes... or just look at the Conn case with its "risk of injury to a minor" charge...what the fuck does that really mean? Plus, i think the sex registry is a copout in that if these people are still dangerous, then why the hell let them out? Registering as a sex offender is not going to stop them from molesting a child.

      Anyway, just my two cents. There will be no rational pedophile/child porn laws until somebody who is power, i.e., imagine if this kid was John McCain's? do you think the prosecutor would have proceeded differently? hell ya... the only reason Matt was able to avoid going to trial is because he parents were fortunate enough to be able to afford a very good attorney. Imagine if they did not have the financial ability to afford good representation?

    18. Re:Coming into your computer?? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      "Windows only comes with a screen door"

      Oh, BULLSHIT.

      The built-in software firewall that has been shipping standard with XP for the past five years or so does a decent job. If Windows machines are getting compromised, it most likely a case where the user has done something stupid behind the firewall while running, as most users have to, as an Administrator.

      In other words, if you can trick the guy inside the house into unlocking the door for you, it doesn't matter if it's a screen door or three-inch steel.

    19. Re:Coming into your computer?? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy, but can't this last issue be fixed by locking your door?

      Of course! But Windows only comes with a screen door, and very few people realize they need a better door, let alone know how to install one. And even if they did manage to get a better door installed, they wouldn't be able to figure out how to operate the lock!


      Considering how physical locks can generally be picked in under a minute by those with the knowledge, I'd think that Windows has exactly the same security as your front door. It's just that it's alot easier for third parties to make use of your internet connected computer than your home.

    20. Re:Coming into your computer?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Can you show them to be grossly negligent? I didn't think so. Security patches come out very quickly for every Linux-related security problem I've ever seen.

      You can't reasonably hold software makers liable for mistakes, since everyone makes mistakes. You can hold them accountable for gross negligence, where the mistake has been exposed and is known about, yet the software maker does nothing to fix it. MS is extremely guilty of this; for example, their software still uses ActiveX, even though it's been shown to be a horribly bad idea. That's gross negligence.

    21. Re:Coming into your computer?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      But by your logic, anyone who's grossly negligent can't be held liable for anything at all, because all they did was to be negligent. Their negligence, by itself, didn't cause any harm. It was only the other entity, which took advantage of this negligence, that actually caused the harm.

      Here's an analogy. Suppose there's a bank (and also, supposed there's no FDIC to insure your money at the bank), and this bank doesn't bother locking its doors at night, or even locking the safe. One night, some burglar figures this out and walks in and takes all the money. You go to the bank the next day to make a withdrawal, and they say your money's all gone, sorry! You sue them for your lost money, and the bank says they shouldn't be held liable, because the burglar is the one that stole the money, not them, even though they admit to leaving the doors unlocked. Do you think the bank should be liable for the stolen money? By your logic, no, since the burglar actually stole it (not that it took any skill to do). If all the bank did was leave the doors unlocked, you can certainly criticize them, but you can't make them pay for the stolen money.

      Does this make any sense? Of course not; it's ridiculous. Any reasonable justice system would force the bank to pay the money back, even though a third party actually took it. Otherwise, what's the incentive for the bank to fix its glaring security problems?

      It's the same for software. Security holes don't cause problems unless someone exploits them. But human nature being what it is, if you have a glaring security problem, someone will be sure to take advantage of it. And trying to recover damages from the criminal usually isn't very successful; they don't have much money (after they've spent it on drugs), and it's not that easy to catch them (esp. if they're in a foreign country, as is the case with internet crimes). That's why we hold companies liable for their negligence, by forcing them to pay for losses caused by their gross negligence.

    22. Re:Coming into your computer?? by David_W · · Score: 1
      My desktop is full of windows and not one door.

      That's because the door is on the back...

      (Groan...)

    23. Re:Coming into your computer?? by pissedoffamerican · · Score: 1

      That's a great analogy.

      I'm really glad there aren't more people like you working for the government. /sarcasm

    24. Re:Coming into your computer?? by Technician · · Score: 1

      That's because the door is on the back...

      Wow! I see it. That's where the tubes go in.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    25. Re:Coming into your computer?? by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

      Very good point. (And thank you for a civil counter-argument.)

      I guess what it comes down to, is whether or not the product/service vendor took reasonable and acceptable precautions to thwart abuse of their product/service. On the one end, you can never make something 100% secure (though banks to pretty good most of the time); at the other end, you can be grossly negligent in letting known problems persist (ie. many Windows security holes).

      I think it's a reasonable argument that if Microsoft would improve the security of their OS, many of the problems mentioned in the summary wouldn't happen, or at least would happen far less frequently. Average people, with minimal computer use experience, wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) have to worry about some pedophile using their system as a zombie server, or implanting pop-up software through built-in services which 99% of users have no need for (and which experienced users can enable as they choose anyway). Microsoft certainly has the resources to make huge improvements in out-of-box security, and while it may be impossible to stop all intrusions, they could certainly cut them down to a tiny fraction of what they are now.

      (BTW, no matter how grossly negligent a product/service provider may be -- and they should be held liable for that -- this in no way makes criminals who exploit the product's/service's flaws any less guilty. In other words, just because someone makes it easier for me to commit a crime, doesn't mean I'm any less guilty for doing so.)

    26. Re:Coming into your computer?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Criminals are always guilty of the crimes they commit, but negligent acts which make it easy for them to commit these acts should also be punished, especially if gross negligence can be shown. No, nothing can be 100% secure, nor should that ever be expected or required, but the law does recognize something called "good faith". If a bank robber finds out about some unknown new security hole in the building and steals a lot of money, the bank probably shouldn't be liable for that (though they'll probably go back to the building designer to see if he screwed up), and if the robber just uses some high explosives to get in, that's certainly beyond all reasonable expectations of security. But if the bank had a bad habit of leaving back doors unlocked and this was known to many employees, the FDIC would probably refuse to honor any insurance claims by the bank, and the bank would be liable for the funds lost.

      MS software can't be reasonably expected to be totally secure; however, there have been a lot of security holes that they simply didn't bother to fix until they were forced to by public disclosure. Even worse, the way they design products makes security a non-priority, or a much lesser priority to lock-in and other marketing concerns. The whole fiasco with Outlook and OE email clients automatically running binary code received in emails is just a poster child for horribly bad security design.

    27. Re:Coming into your computer?? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Can you show them to be grossly negligent?

      At least as much as you can Microsoft.

      You can't reasonably hold software makers liable for mistakes, since everyone makes mistakes.

      99% of security problems - yes, even on Windows - are "user mistakes".

      You can hold them accountable for gross negligence, where the mistake has been exposed and is known about, yet the software maker does nothing to fix it. MS is extremely guilty of this; for example, their software still uses ActiveX, even though it's been shown to be a horribly bad idea. That's gross negligence.

      Strange how millions of people manage to run ActiveX without incident then, if it's as inherently bad as you say.

      Having a superuser has _always_ been "shown to be a bad idea", yet most unix systems still have one today. How is that not "gross negligence" as well ?

  6. Unproportional by linuxci · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not very good that when the prosecutors couldn't convict him for the porn they still wanted to stick some conviction on him! What's the idea that someone handing copies of playboy to their friends be convicted of a crime? There's nothing illegal in that magazine. The US have some weird attitudes to tits and nudity (playboy ain't really porn).

    As for computers, things like this show why we need better education. Make sure people know to keep things updated. Tell them about Firefox, suggest that they get a Mac next time. They're not going to be 100% safe this way, but at least when you add it together with common sense safety measures then they're going to be significantly safer. Like it or not, the fact is all these people who get computers have been given the impression that it's so easy but they get the least secure system out of the box. People need educating about the dangers plus knowledge of the alternative choices.

    1. Re:Unproportional by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US have some weird attitudes to tits and nudity (playboy ain't really porn).

      Because the religious right and grumpy grannies run our politics.

    2. Re:Unproportional by kaufmanmoore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's nothing illegal in the magazine, but you have to be 18 to have one. He got thecharge on the same type of laws that make it illegal for minors to possess cigarettes and alcohol.

    3. Re:Unproportional by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      The US have some weird attitudes to tits and nudity (playboy ain't really porn).

            The US was founded by people apparently even too uptight by English standards. There's a good portion of Americans that started out dunking witches, and still at it waterboarding their demons.

            On the other hand, we have some horrendous crimes committed by repeat violent sex offenders that should be locked up, but some young person has to die first before they will.

            If you saw our Dateline investigative tv show showing one guy after another showing up at what he thinks is a young girl's house with booze and condoms, it is absolutely amazing. One guy even showed up at another house a second time while he was out on bond from the first visit.

            But prosecutors that behave like this one with the Playboy thing among boys needs to be given a swift boot out the door.

        rd

    4. Re:Unproportional by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe that the catch is, while it's technically not illegal for a minor to read Playboy, it's not legal to GIVE a minor a playboy ("corrupting a minor" or some such nonsense.) Even though the kid was a minor himself, it's still technically illegal for him to give the Playboy to another minor. Similarly, if two 16 year olds have sex, they can both be charged with statutory rape, though typically either they are only threatened with arrest, or only the boy is arrested.

      Note that I'm not DEFENDING this bullshit--just explaining it.

    5. Re:Unproportional by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's the idea that someone handing copies of playboy to their friends be convicted of a crime? There's nothing illegal in that magazine.

      Not to defend the US laws too much, but playboy is here in Europe too a pornographic magazine, I can't show it to your 8yo daughter without getting in trouble and you probably wouldn't want it any other way. Technically, a 16yo is legally responsible for his own actions and handing it to a minor is illegal, even if it's his buddy. It's just that in practise, it doesn't happen. On the other hand, it probably would happen if he was showing it to your 8yo daughter.

      What the US seems to lack is some sort of sense in applying laws - I think the most incredible case is where a girl got charged with molesting herself because she jacked off in front of a webcam. And no, it wasn't a kiddie porn production charge, it was a molestation charge. I'm certain that somewhere in the technicals of the law it says it's a strict liability - the circumstances does not matter for the guilty - but you still have to be seriously fucked up in the head to interpret that to mean you can molest yourself.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Unproportional by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Similarly, if two 16 year olds have sex, they can both be charged with statutory rape

      Just to be complete: in lots of states there's a provision in the statutory rape law that says if both parties are "old enough" (usually 16-ish), and close in age (usually 2 years), then it's not a crime. This appears to be the new and trendy way to modify the statutory rape laws.

      Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, yadda yadda yadda, check your local laws before trolling for jailbait.

    7. Re:Unproportional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, better education on computer security would be good, but i think the real lack of proportionality here is the very Puritanical view of sex and the out of control "Won't someone think of the children!!" style laws.

      I agree that child porn is bad and should be punished (especially if one actually means kids as opposed to 16 year olds), but i don't think that someone who is found with child porn on their machine, even if they actually downloaded it, needs be labeled a "Sexual Predator" the same way a serial rapist (or any rapist) would be. To me it is clearly a much less serious crime. By our current standard, for example, the whole country of Japan should properly be labeled as predators what with the whole school girl uniform thing they have going on there.

      Come on... 10 years for a picture of an underage girl "in a suggestive pose"? For just having it (as opposed to taking it)? That, to me, seems WAY too much. Yes, i understand that even though the copy of the picture doesn't actually hurt the kid in general it creates some sort of "demand" that makes it more likely that more kids will be molested in the future, but i still think a fine would be a more reasonable penalty.

      just my $0.02.

      posting as AC, because even SAYING probably sets off alarms at Predator Police headquarters or something.

    8. Re:Unproportional by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      What's the idea that someone handing copies of playboy to their friends be convicted of a crime? There's nothing illegal in that magazine. The US have some weird attitudes to tits and nudity (playboy ain't really porn).

      Our real problem is that we don't remove outdated laws from the books. Until last year, Virginia technically forbade blacks and whites from marrying. One state had a death penalty for adultery on the books - they finally repealed that law after an angry wife pushed for a prosecution of her husband.

      -b.

    9. Re:Unproportional by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The US have some weird attitudes to tits and nudity (playboy ain't really porn).

      Agreed, though it isn't just the US. The UK still has outdated obscenity laws, and you can be charged for showing non-approved material to someone (even if they are an adult who wants to see it), or for importing a video from abroad that wasn't approved by the censors. (Admittedly, this doesn't include playboy as it's legal to publish, but then again I wouldn't be surprised if there were laws about showing it to minors.)

      The Government, unable to cope with the fact that they aren't able to censor the Internet, are now planning to criminalise possession (they're using words like "extreme porn", but it's about criminalising possession because some people think the images are too naughty - see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ for more info). Mediawatch are currently petitioning the Government to also criminalise possession of a wider range of (currently legal to publish) porn. (A counter petition is here, or see the one in my .sig.)

      Also note that the Government defines porn to be anything which was intended to arouse, so could be broad enough to cover anything erotic (i.e., it doesn't have to be sexually explicit).

      Tell them about Firefox, suggest that they get a Mac next time.

      Well I'm no great fan of Windows, but I don't think not getting a Mac is a reason to lay blame...

    10. Re:Unproportional by catdevnull · · Score: 1

      C'mon now--the religious right is the biggest market for porn! They don't want any weasels getting their porn for free when they had to pay!

      --

      I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
    11. Re:Unproportional by Apoklypse · · Score: 0

      one word - Police State ... this is their only control over you, make the laws so obtuse and unknowable, and the infractions numerous, everyone is a known felon and INTIMIDATED and harassed into acceptance, into obedience, into servitude ... get you into the system, make you a known element, provide cause to keep you under increased surveillance, to build bigger more dangerous databaases, and datamining engines - control, control, control - so says Fuehrer Bush
      wake up sheeple ... destroy any attempt to subvert your rights - and your DUTIES to your nation, destroy government tyranny in ANY incarnation, in any measure, before their corruption gets as much as a toehold ...

    12. Re:Unproportional by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      What the US seems to lack is some sort of sense in applying laws

      Also, the US system lives on plea bargaining - charging with one charge or a series of offenses then the defendant agreeing to cop to a "lesser" charge in order to avoid the more serious charge. Attorneys are too eager to avoid trial and agree to reduced charges. I suspect that if half of those BS cases went to trial, they'd be thrown out either by judges or juries.

      What we need:
      (a) jury trials for all criminal offenses - if it's not important enough to impanel a jury, it's not important enough try
      (b) less plea bargaining - almost all cases should go to trial. Again, if it isn't important enough to try, it shouldn't be charged. Period. (c) a Federal requirement that states require a grand jury before going to trial on any felony.

      -b.

    13. Re:Unproportional by k_187 · · Score: 1

      yeah, all three of those already exist.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    14. Re:Unproportional by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Interesting
      yeah, all three of those already exist.

      Nope, quite a few states require trials before a judge only for misdemenors and traffic offenses. I think the law should be like in Texas, that you have the right to a jury trial for any offense. None of that bullshit about "civil offenses" being charged by the state or "minor misdemenors." If it's important enough to be summonsed, it's important enough for a jury. This would discourage revenue-raising cops and prosecutors who just want to make a name for themselves.

      Plea bargaining is alive and well. The conventional view of people who want to abolish it is that it allows hardened criminals to get away with lesser charges. My view is the contrary, sort of - the existence of that game requires prosecutors to press the harshest charges possible and then attempt to talk them down instead of trying them. If trials or a guilty plea to the charges themselves were required, then prosecutors wouldn't press unreasonably harsh charges because the chances of going to trial would increase and juries might be unwilling to convict.

      Quite a few states have abolished grand juries as gatekeepers to felony trials in the name of "expediency." A shame, really, since grand juries serve as a check on prosecutors' power to some extent.

      -b.

    15. Re:Unproportional by k_187 · · Score: 1

      Eh, most grand jury's are simply rubber stamps for the prosecution. I don't think that requiring them would decrease anything.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    16. Re:Unproportional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If trials or a guilty plea to the charges themselves were required, then prosecutors wouldn't press unreasonably harsh charges because the chances of going to trial would increase and juries might be unwilling to convict.

      What we need is end-to-end recording of everything said by a cop or DA staff to every person questioned. Then people could see the shit that really goes on. I think a lot of the CSI show stuff is crap, but I firmly believe every cop or prosecutor-type thinks his first responsibility is to get something, however small, on everyone they contact. In the real world, it's called extortion.

      I mean like the stuff where they ask for records which should rightly be sub-poenaed. They basically can be allowed to help themselves simply by threatening that, if you don't hand over right now, they'll come back with a sub-poena that will take three weeks to implement, looking at every scrap of paper on the premises, during which time, you'll be unable to do business and probably go under.

      That and the crap about, "Do you believe your wife knows you were in that part of town last night?"

      Not to mention that any ommission or slipup during an interrogation automatically gets charged as both lying to an officer AND impeding an investigation, in addition to which you'll be charged as an accessory if it's in any way possible. What's this shit about three charges for a single act? It sounds like an end run around double jeopardy. They could likely try you separately for each.

      Recently, some guy on the west coast was being questioned about the whereabouts and activities of one of his wayward kids. They thought he wasn't all that cooperative, so within five minutes, the motherfucking nazis had him set to be charged with three different things that could have netted him 21 years total.

      And then they'll lie through their teeth to protect one of their own. Trust me, I've seen it in my own family.

      That's why I vote no an every possible benefit for cops, including the widows and orphans.

      Right now, the California cops are going nuts because there's a bill planned to make them individually responsible for damage or death incurred as a result of high-speed chases. Every other state has it, but our snivelling bastards are shitting their pants over the idea that they may be as liable as cops elsewhere.

    17. Re:Unproportional by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Eh, most grand jury's are simply rubber stamps for the prosecution. I don't think that requiring them would decrease anything.

      They're also composed of citizens other than the prosecutor who have no professional interest in seeing the case go to trial. I imagine that truly frivolous charges by a prosecutor would provoke a WTF? type response in at least some of the members.

      -b.

    18. Re:Unproportional by hey! · · Score: 1

      Not very good that when the prosecutors couldn't convict him for the porn they still wanted to stick some conviction on him! What's the idea that someone handing copies of playboy to their friends be convicted of a crime? There's nothing illegal in that magazine. The US have some weird attitudes to tits and nudity (playboy ain't really porn).


      Playboy aside, I'd like to pick up on your first point. There's something really rotten going on the prosecutor's office. Either the kid is willfully participating in child porn or he is not. So, if he is, then why let him off? If he is not, then why not let the matter drop, instead of insisting on a bogus "crime".

      It leads to one of two possible conclusions about this scenario: (A) The AZ prosecutors give child molesters a pass if they can scare up some sympathetic publicity or (B) once they get an innocent person in their sights, they'd rather make up a crime than admit they were wrong.

      Either way, its a disgrace to the people of Arizona.

      Maybe Governor Napolitano can issue a pardon.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    19. Re:Unproportional by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      What's this shit about three charges for a single act? It sounds like an end run around double jeopardy. They could likely try you separately for each.

      That's part of the problem with the easy availability of plea bargains (to prosecutors). They'll charge you with three things, offer to drop the two most serious offenses, and you'll think you're getting off lucky pleading guilty to a misdemenor with "only" a fine for punishment. Whereas, if once charges were filed by a prosecutor, you had to go through the indictment process (in front of a judge for misdemenors, a grand jury for felonies) and then either a guilty plea or trial, I suspect that a lot of the more serious "bullshit" charges would never happen in the first place since there would be no real chance of conviction.

      -b.

    20. Re:Unproportional by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      True, but not all states have this type of provision, to my knowledge. There's still a bunch of backwards states out there. Just look at all the states where it's still illegal to have sodemy, even though the Supreme Court ruled those laws unenforceable.

    21. Re:Unproportional by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's part of the American way of thinking. It's just like the way retailers here price things. Instead of just having a set price on an item, they give it a ridiculous jacked-up price, and call that the "normal" price. Then, they set a more reasonable "sale" price. People fall for this, thinking they're "saving" so much money by not having to pay the "normal" price, even though in reality, the store always charges the "sale" price and not the "normal" one.

      Some people are such shop-a-holics that they don't even pay attention to how much anything costs. They only look at how much they "save". They'll come home to their husbands and tell him, "Look! I saved $2000 today on all this stuff!", even though they really spent $3000 for a bunch of crap they don't need and will never use.

    22. Re:Unproportional by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      It's part of the American way of thinking. It's just like the way retailers here price things. Instead of just having a set price on an item, they give it a ridiculous jacked-up price, and call that the "normal" price. Then, they set a more reasonable "sale" price.

      Nah, it's a human thing in general. Think of an open-air market in any developing country - sellers expect buyers to haggle, so they jack the listed prices up (the proverbial 'Turkish bazaar'). This is fine and expected in a business environment. However, when the stakes become more than money, haggling ceases to have a place - in the case of the justice system, the stakes are lives or some portion thereof (jail time) plus future reputation.

      -b.

    23. Re:Unproportional by KalElOfJorEl · · Score: 1

      Unproportional?

      Is Dubya making Slashdot posts now? Giving someone with a title like "unproportional" a 5 seems like a disproportionate thing to do for the rest of us who don't make up words :P

    24. Re:Unproportional by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Of course also tell the boy to stop surfing porn and warez sites. You're not going to convince me that he didn't search out porn in the first place (probably not kiddie though).

    25. Re:Unproportional by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Lately some of the most dangerous places to visit have been "free games" collections. Avoiding porn and warez is useful but still leaves you exposed to all sorts of clean-looking boobytrapped goodies.

    26. Re:Unproportional by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      So replace the kids in the example with 13 or 14 or 15 year olds. Technically, they can still be charged and convicted of "raping" each other, even if they're the exact same age.

    27. Re:Unproportional by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Of course also tell the boy to stop surfing porn and warez sites. You're not going to convince me that he didn't search out porn in the first place (probably not kiddie though).

      If you read the ABC article you'll see he admits to visiting adult erotic websites, websites a friend gave him.

      Falcon
    28. Re:Unproportional by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Because the religious right and grumpy grannies run our politics.

      Because you let them.

    29. Re:Unproportional by Anthony+Baby · · Score: 1

      Not very good that when the prosecutors couldn't convict him for the porn they still wanted to stick some conviction on him! What's the idea that someone handing copies of playboy to their friends be convicted of a crime? There's nothing illegal in that magazine. The US have some weird attitudes to tits and nudity (playboy ain't really porn).

      I agree with you, especially on your last point. In this particular case, anyone living or working in Arizona shouldn't be surprised by this kind of prosecution. From what I read about this case, it takes place in Maricopa County (Phoenix,Scottsdale,Mesa). That especially sucks for the kid. Arizona prides itself on still being the "old west", and the prosecutors and sheriffs there are very heavy-handed to the point of being draconian. Several of the sheriffs even sport the stereotypical old western sheriff look (funny hats and mustaches included). Sometimes, the law enforcement atmosphere there feels like a perversion of "Gunsmoke" with emphasis placed on maximum punishment, and barring that, public humiliation.

      The most notorious example is Maricopa county's sheriff, Joe Arpaio. He's nicknamed "America's toughest sheriff" for the tactics he uses and his treatment of prisoners (non-convicts included). He still likes to assemble posses from among civilians. He loves to be in front of the camera. He's not giving speeches every night, but he does like to make his presence known. Many of the locals love him; but many are afraid of him. Some even argue that he is abusive.

      He makes his prisoners wear pink in order to humiliate them. He forces them to live in his outdoor "tent city" suffering harsh desert conditions (bare in mind that not all convicts in tent city are violent offenders). He installed webcams in Phoenix's Madison Street Jail so that the world could see prisoners in the world's first jailcam; however, it got him sued since these "prisoners" were only in jail, hence not convicted criminals. In one case, a female prisoner was broadcasted over the web using a toilet without knowing she was being watched.

      I once saw him parade a chain of crying middled-aged women (all Mexican illegals) before a row of flashing cameras. He's been criticized for torturing prisoners, allowing prisoners to die in his custody, and in allowing officers to take advantage of prostitutes in custody (see Wikipedia entry). There have even been complaints that he has allowed undercover police in prostitution raids to receive full services from prostitutes before making arrests, resulting in nearly 60 arrests being dropped.

      Recently, the Phoenix area has been experiencing freezing weather below 30 F, and inmates in Arpaio's outdoor prison "tent city" have complained about the cold. The sheriff's response was that if they didn't want to suffer, they should not have committing crimes. (sorry no citation, check KPHO.com). Most recently, he has listed outstanding warrants for approx. 70,000 people on the sheriff's website, and has encouraged all citizens to read the list and report individuals they identify on the list.

      Ironically, as harsh as Arpaio is, and as popular as the sheriff is among hardcore justice lovers; he has really been successful in only instilling complete fear in citizens who aren't would-be criminals. Maricopa county still suffers from extremely violent crimes including regular home invasions, teen rapes, and the Baseline Killer which made national news last year. I believe there is even an ASU study that was funded using tax dollars under Arpaio's control that reviewed his tent city prision, and then determined that Arpaio's tactics are largely ineffective.

    30. Re:Unproportional by Triv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bad analogy - It's not illegal for a minor to have cigarettes; it's not even illegal for a minor to buy cigarettes. It's illegal for cigarettes to be sold to a minor - the crime lies with the store, not the kid. I'm fairly sure the same applies to pornography, but I could be wrong.

    31. Re:Unproportional by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Eh, most grand jury's are simply rubber stamps for the prosecution. I don't think that requiring them would decrease anything.

      Only because most defendants don't appear before the Grand Jury because it isn't typically in their interest. In NYS the Grand Jurors (and DA) can ask you any question they want and you can't refuse to answer. Obviously if you are guilty of something then appearing before the Grand Jury isn't in your best interest.

      If you are innocent then often times you can stop the whole criminal process at the Grand Jury. I'm speaking from experience here. The Grand Jury is not a rubber stamp if you appear before them and state your case.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    32. Re:Unproportional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He forces them to live in his outdoor "tent city" suffering harsh desert conditions"

      Hmmmmm if it is good enough for our military men and women who have died in the millions through out our history defending and winning our freedom then well it is good enough for criminals around 10,000 people died in the most important war the US ever fought do too hunger and exposure to the elements........People like you irritate me........I very seriously doubt any of these criminals are in danger of dying from starvation for frost bite or dehydration bu yet you cry about their rights well maybe if the had not voluntarily given up their right they could be living in a nice comfy apt/house instead of a tent city........

      http://www.creationapologetics.org/timeline/revol. html

      "Most historians estimate that about 7,200 Americans were killed in battle during the Revolutionary War. Approximately 8,200 more were wounded. About 10,000 others died in military camps from disease or exposure. Some 8,500 died in prison after being captured by the British. American military deaths from all causes during the war thus numbered about 25,700. In addition, approximately 1,400 soldiers were missing. British military deaths during the war totaled about 10,000."

    33. Re:Unproportional by csplinter · · Score: 1

      "Hmmmmm if it is good enough for our military men and women who have died in the millions through out our history defending and winning our freedom then well it is good enough for criminals"

      It's a jail not everyone there is a criminal, many people are awaiting trial.

    34. Re:Unproportional by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Virginia is a very backwards state. It's still illegal there to have sex in any position other than the missionary, and it's also illegal to have the lights on during sex.

    35. Re:Unproportional by hawg2k · · Score: 1

      For all these posts that are calling for better security education etc., you're not wrong, but youre missing the real problem. This particular incident just happens to involve computers, the internet, viruses/spam, etc.

      The problem is, probably among other things, a combination of the government having too much unchecked power, and judges having too little common sense. This is just another example pointing it out.

      Instead of the particulars of a situation, plus a little common sense, affecting the judgement, we get teachers being fired and charged with endangering a minor and this kid's a sex offender for life.

      If that's the extent of the common sense going into our Judges' decisions, we can just whip up a Perl script to make these decisiosn and fire all the Judges.

      Sorry, I don't have a better solution, but I see (at least part) of the problem.

    36. Re:Unproportional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to be a pendant...disproportional?

        drawkcab

    37. Re:Unproportional by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Virginia is a very backwards state. It's still illegal there to have sex in any position other than the missionary

      Wouldn't that make it a very front-looking state rather than a backwards one?

      -b.

    38. Re:Unproportional by Anthony+Baby · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmm if it is good enough for our military men and women who have died in the millions through out our history...

      In the millions? Fair comment still. The difference here is that these are not soldiers. Inmates in Tent City don't get the same care as soldiers in the field do. Also, soldiers and marines have a generally higher level of physical stamina as well as training that aids them in prolonged exposure to harsh climates. The Revolutionary War stats are irrelevent. There were largely civilians with little real training except for what LaFayette and Von Steuben could provide. Also, these citizen soldiers often went without the proper equipment needed to survive prolonged exposure to the cold and suffered due to poor general health. They are vastly different from the highly-trained, fit professional soldiers that we have today (Disclaiimer: professional != mercenery here). Your average offender lacks training and fortitude. Are they suffering? They would say so. Of course, I don't believe the prisoners deserve creature comforts; my point is merely that punishment in Arizona and especially Maricopa County is harsher than in other jurisdictions, that there are complaints and admonishments, and that Arpaio's methodologies have not really been effective in deterring the most violent crime. In his defense though, he has a drug rehabilitation program that seems to have been successful. Do I still irritate you?

    39. Re:Unproportional by Anthony+Baby · · Score: 1

      It's a jail not everyone there is a criminal, many people are awaiting trial.

      Actually, is that true? I was under the assumption that Tent City was a full prison and not a jail. Ergo, everyone in Tent City is a convict. The Tent City situation then is different from say, the jailcam at the Madison Street jail where Arpaio streamed video of people who are only detained in jail and who have not been convicted of any wrongdoing.

    40. Re:Unproportional by csplinter · · Score: 1

      No, it's a jail.

      http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=tentcity
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_City#.22Tent_Cit y.22:_Maricopa_County_Jail_Modification.2C_Phoenix .2C_AZ.

      Note however, there are convicts there serving sentences of up to one year. If you are sentenced to more than one year you are sent to a full fledged prison. That might be the source of some of your confusion.

    41. Re:Unproportional by Anthony+Baby · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for the correction. IANAL, but the length of these sentences sounds as if the cons in Tent City are there for mostly non-violent offenses with the exception of a few batteries and assaults.

  7. your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    lesser charge (namely, sharing a Playboy magazine with friends)

    Wow. You USAians really live in a fucked up country if you can be charged with showing your mates a playboy.

    1. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You USAians really live in a fucked up country if you can be charged with showing your mates a playboy.

      Wow. It didn't take long for you Europeans to slam the United States yet again (what, you have a news shortage over there?). For double points, you say "USAians" instead of the preferred "Americans."

      Of course, we could call you EUians, though it would sound like we dropped something heavy on our toe.

    2. Re:your country is fucked by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Pretty insightful to insult the US for no reason. Because it's unthinkable that any European nation has any obsolete "Blue Laws" which can be used to prosecute people like in this case.

    3. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm not European. I come from the land of Oz (you know, with the wizard and what not). You may prefer American, but as another post pointed out, others that live on the continent America should not be associated with the stupidity of the USA. My intent was not to insult others on the continent.

    4. Re:your country is fucked by Moekandu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tell me about it.

      Although, I'm starting to think that our District Attorneys here in AZ need a gift subscription to Playboy...

      Man, lemme tell you, it's tempting!

      --
      Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    5. Re:your country is fucked by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Better than paying 200% VAT on it. All countries suck, it's not just the US.

      --
      My other car is first.
    6. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For double points, you say "USAians" instead of the preferred "Americans."


      Maybe that's because people outside US remember that there (still) exist non-US Americans?

      For double points, you baselessly assume that the OP is EU-based. Hint - at the time of his post it was between 00:44am and 02:44am in EU and quite a bit earlier in the Americas, Australia et al.

      Congrats, you're the last recipient of the 'narrow-minded nationalist' award on /.
    7. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Name one European country where a 16 year old kid can get convicted of a sex crime and be labled a sex offender for showing a Playboy magazine to his similarly aged friends! A goddamn Playboy magazine!!. FFS, get your head out of your ass.

    8. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, only in the US (and other oppresive regimes in the Middle East) can you go to prison for looking at another person's bum.

    9. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, it's unjustified to insult the entire country. But let's not overlook the issue here. If these recent stories about ordinary people being jailed or made into sex offenders are any indication, the US clearly has some VERY, VERY, VERY screwed up laws regarding pornography and minors. It's easy to say, "They're doing it for the Christian votes," and that may well be true. But it's no excuse. They're condemning people to a life of misery just to make it look as though they're strong on the issue of protecting children from sex. Not that children need protecting from the most natural thing in the world. It really does indicate that your justice system is broken.

    10. Re:your country is fucked by mdboyd · · Score: 1

      Guess what? I agree with you. It's a really ridiculous charge for a kid who appears to be a harmless teenage boy.

    11. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Central and South America are full of Ivy League scholars and rocket scientists amirite

    12. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      USAians is definitely appropriate cause us other "Americans" (those of us in Latin America) or even those in Canada don't want to be included when speaking about your fucked up country.

      Oh, and tell me, which Latin American country do you come from that has the word "America" in it's name that would cause confusion? The name of this country is "The United States of America" and it's citizens are Americans, much as someone from the "United Mexican States" is referred to as being Mexican, not a UMSian. There is nobody who actually lives on this planet that is going to hear someone called an American, and think "Wow, he must be from Brazil". The real issue is that you're a pointless troll, and you have an inferiority complex regarding your national identity. As far as the Canadians go, if their nation's name was "The Canadian Dominion of America", maybe you'd have a point, but it isn't, so you don't.

    13. Re:your country is fucked by BgJonson79 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, but none of the other countries count. Most are third world nations and the one that's not still has a monarch as head of state.

      Living in Oz must mean you're a criminal, right? I mean, is it still a requirement?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    14. Re:your country is fucked by BgJonson79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike Europe, where you can go to prison for debating how many Jews were killed in WWII. Say the real number, you're A-OK. Say a lesser number, and you're thrown in the dock. Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    15. Re:your country is fucked by BgJonson79 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I didn't know Latin America had electricity, let alone the Internet. I thought the old Spanish aristocracy wouldn't allow their serfs to see the freedom of the outside world.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    16. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wah, the world is my patch of dirt, wah, someone insulted my patch of dirt, wah, maybe if I insult those non-existant other worlders i will feel better, wah.

      I live in SA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australia which was settled by non convicts (and my family has lived here since they emigrated ~1800). That said, I do break laws when it suits me. Are you telling me you don't break the law?

    17. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In American English, American refers to people of the USA. North American or South American refers to people of either continent.
      Problem solved.

    18. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you are from the Commonwealth of Australia, is the correct term CoAian or just CAian? The latter looks like you are from Canada or California, but you usually don't stick "of" in an acronym. Or is it just Ozian? I don't want to offend you by using the wrong term.

    19. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If speaking the truth (i.e., re-stating known facts) about what your society imposes on it's citizens is being insulting then obviously you need to worry about the broken way that your society works instead of what other people might speak about it.

    20. Re:your country is fucked by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Naaahhh, I just just trolling until I can skip the commercials on a Discovery Channel show. I like the Commonwealth countries quite a bit.

      What people seem to be missing here, though, is that this was an AZ prosecutor, not a federal one. You can't rip on the USA because this isn't a coutry-wide law. States have very, very different laws on a whole host of subjects. For instance, my state has no sales or income tax, while the states the border mine have very high state taxes. My state doesn't register firearms; the state to the south registers handguns... if they let you buy one at all.

      I'd imagine Oz has different laws in different states.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    21. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USAians is definitely appropriate cause us other "Americans" (those of us in Latin America) or even those in Canada don't want to be included when speaking about your fucked up country.

      I have to admit, it pegs my irony meter when someone from Latin American calls the United States a fucked up country.

    22. Re:your country is fucked by Aptgetupdate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He didn't get labeled a sex offender for showing a Playboy. It isn't a "sex crime." A child showing porn (no matter how lame) to other children is illegal, to the extent that children smoking cigarettes is illegal in many countries. It's the "lesser charge" to which he made a plea down.

      Australia has some pretty ridiculous laws against porn -- which is why so many Australian porn sites moved *to* USAmerica to beat the censorship laws imposed ~2000.

      All the white world has its share of backwood, podunk conservatives, and I'm always amazed people from Oz can knock the US with a straight face. Knock American politics all you want (I do) but since when is Australia the beacon of liberal, progressive thought and intellectualism? Your Prime Minister has been Bush's faithful cheerleader through every, mucky step of the Iraq war, and can't seem to get enough of Moral Values invading policy.

    23. Re:your country is fucked by rm999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Germany you can be convicted for sharing the shareware version of wolfenstein 3d with your friends. In the USA we think that is stupid.

    24. Re:your country is fucked by Thexare+Blademoon · · Score: 1

      So your defense for our country is "everyone else is doing it?" That's a pretty shitty defense.

    25. Re:your country is fucked by AusIV · · Score: 1
      Nobody is going to be outright charged for showing friends a Playboy unless somebody's parents strongly object. This is what you call talking down a sentence. Al Capone was put away on tax evasion because they couldn't prove anything else. No prosecutor would take on a charge of just showing someone a Playboy, but they want to get something out of their case when the initial charges don't hold water.

      I don't know where you live that's all high and mighty, but I can't imagine you don't have any stupid suits that get through.

    26. Re:your country is fucked by starX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, no, no, you're missing the point entirely. He's not really being charged with passing the Playboy; although it is widely known that Playboy is a subversive magazine that has published such smut as Farenheit 451, the Playboy is just a symptom, and since the only thing we see are symptoms, that's what we punish. The crime that we're actually trying to get at is sex in general. The people who make these laws know what horrible, fucked up perverts they really are, and in trying to protect us from horrible, fucked up perverts operating at all levels of our society. The problem was that this boy was going through puberty, we can only punish him for the Playboy for now.

    27. Re:your country is fucked by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      A lesson in citizen names:

      People from the United States of America = Americans

      People from Canada = Canadians

      People from Mexico = Mexicans

      No confusion.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    28. Re:your country is fucked by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And in that country, one cannot say ANYTHING about WW2 or Nazis.

      Wow, if sexual laws suck in one country, freedom of speech sucks in the other.

      I like Sealand... I might try for citizenship considering how out-to-lunch Euros and USians are.

      --
    29. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Unlike Europe, where you can go to prison for debating how many Jews were killed in WWII. Say the real number, you're A-OK. Say a lesser number, and you're thrown in the dock. Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.
      Why exactly do you have a problem with that? I'm in favor of freedom of expression, but why should that extend to outright lies about objective facts? I half-wish more places would be willing to do this, about more subjects.
    30. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I live in the US and this country is going to shit.

    31. Re:your country is fucked by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You may prefer American, but as another post pointed out, others that live on the continent America..."

      It is Americans, not USians because of the country name.

      Mexico == Mexicans

      Canada == Canadians

      United States of America == Americans

      It kind of follows, doesn't it?

      Changing what you call us...well, kind of doublespeak or revisionist language isn't it? We've been called Americans for a long time...why try to change it eh?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:your country is fucked by Snarfangel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why exactly do you have a problem with that? I'm in favor of freedom of expression, but why should that extend to outright lies about objective facts? I half-wish more places would be willing to do this, about more subjects.

      Who determines what is a lie, the government? What if the Administration said "Global warming is a myth, and anyone caught repeating it will be punished?" Or conversely, what about in Muslim countries, where they say "Mohammed is the true prophet of Allah, and anyone who is a prophet-denier will be punished"?

      This isn't to say that there are no forms of prohibited speech -- I can't just say "My neighbor eats babies for breakfast" and not expect to be sued for defamation. However, in this case there is an actual person being harmed. Likewise, if I claimed my elderly Jewish neighbor was never in a concentration camp, but tattooed his own arm to gain sympathy, I might be defending myself against a slander charge. However, I can't imagine a class action suit against me if I started claiming a particular number of Jews died, since it would be very difficult to prove my words damaged anyone.

      Finally, it's a cliche, but the solution to free speech is more free speech. Prohibiting something -- whether it is denying the holocaust or burning a flag -- merely tempts certain people into doing it anyway. Better to consistently, continually, and logically argue against such behavior, rather than legally prevent it, since prohibition damages society even more.

      --
      This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
    33. Re:your country is fucked by gullevek · · Score: 1

      in which country? thats BS.

      Forbidden is showing NAZI Symbols, Uniforms, etc.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    34. Re:your country is fucked by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Civics 101: freedom of speech is about protecting speech WE DON'T LIKE!

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    35. Re:your country is fucked by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a guy just released from prison in the UK, where he served a term for denying the Holocaust?

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    36. Re:your country is fucked by unitron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The name of this country is "The United States of America" and it's citizens are Americans...

      No, we are citizens of The United States of America. There is no country whose name is America. Referring to us as Americans or to our nation as America are commonly accepted colloquialisms, but not strictly accurate.

      Frankly, I'm not too thrilled that "The United States of America" is used as a singular construction, rather than plural, these days, either.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    37. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USAians is not only shorter than Americans but it also sounds funnier.

    38. Re:your country is fucked by Deoxyribose · · Score: 1

      The point is, it's not that the EU governments are cracking down on anti-semetic views that's worrying (anti-semetism = not good), but more that a precedent has been set where the disputing of officially true information can become a crime.
      Here's an extreme example:
      You are a member of an oppressed minority.
      One day, the government sends troops into your city and 50,000 other members of your group are killed.
      The government says that only 100 were killed, by "vigilantes."
      You publicly dispute this.
      The government puts you in prison.

    39. Re:your country is fucked by harmonica · · Score: 1

      Austria. Also Germany.

    40. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok!

      American Pronunciation (-mr-kn)
      n.
      1. A native or inhabitant of America.
      2. A citizen of the United States.
      3. American English.

      Take a guess about all the other people in the continent that are included in the 1st definition. So next time, please DO something to differentiate, then!

      Oh, boy with these United Statians!

    41. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off the top of my head, Germany:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zundel

    42. Re:your country is fucked by mike2R · · Score: 1
      He didn't get labeled a sex offender for showing a Playboy. It isn't a "sex crime." A child showing porn (no matter how lame) to other children is illegal, to the extent that children smoking cigarettes is illegal in many countries. It's the "lesser charge" to which he made a plea down.

      That's not what TFA says. The prosecution wanted him registered as a sex offender even after the plea bargain, which logically implies that the law allows this. For sharing a playboy magazine. No I think the US still wins the international "most fucked up about sex award".

      The relevant piece of the article:

      But the Bandy family nightmare was not over. While the prosecution deal offered no jail time for Matthew, he would still be labeled a sex offender. Under Arizona law and in most states around the country, sex crimes carry with them a life of branding. Matthew would be forced to register as a sex offender everywhere he lived, for the rest of his life.

      "I have to stay away from children," said Matthew. "I cannot be around any area where there might be minors, including the mall, or the movies, or restaurants or even church. To go to church I have to have written consent from our priest, I have to sit in a different pew, one that doesn't have a child sitting in it."

      'Computers Are Not Safe'

      The judge couldn't believe the prosecution was insisting on sex offender status and invited Matthew to appeal. "20/20" was there when two years of fear and misery finally ended. A message arrived from the judge, ironically on the computer, informing them that Matthew would not be labeled a sex offender. Matt and his parents had won his life back.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    43. Re:your country is fucked by demallien2 · · Score: 1

      You goose! Have a long hard think about the word "asian", and its meaning....

    44. Re:your country is fucked by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1
      Wow. You USAians really live in a fucked up country if you can be charged with showing your mates a playboy.
      It would have been OK if it was 'Big Gun Monthly' or 'Killing and Survival Gazette' or maybe even 'Top Violent Moments' on DVD but include anything involving nudy ladies and you're an evildoer par excellence.
      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    45. Re:your country is fucked by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Why exactly do you have a problem with that?

      Consider the effect this law has had - it's nothing but a recruiting tool for revisionists. If you need a law to prevent someone from disagreeing with you, it smells fishy, it seems like you are not telling the truth. It doesn't matter that holocaust-revisionists are without exception either stupid or malicious, thanks to that German law they can now appear as fearless voices of the truth. If you want people to know the truth you have to teach them the truth, you can't just legislate them into believing it.

    46. Re:your country is fucked by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Unlike Europe, where you can go to prison for debating how many Jews were killed in WWII.

      Which European country?

      There's no such law here, in mine.

      There are few things that ruin one's argument more than sheer ignorance.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    47. Re:your country is fucked by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      Spot on, there!

      First of all, at the age of 15, it's perfectly normal to want to have the occasional quick wank over dirty magazines, the blue lagoon love scenes or anything your fantasy might label as erotic.

      Secondly, if I had shown my nudie-mags to a mate at that age, the parents would probably give me a beer and a pat on the back. It is after all very healthy heterosexual behaviour, right?

      Thirdly, the local bobby wouldn't give a flying toss if he was told about it. Most likely, he'd try to extort the nudie mag for his own private viewing from the "offender".

    48. Re:your country is fucked by BeeRockxs · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about Germany, you're flat-out wrong.
      You can say pretty much anything about WWII and the Nazis, you just can't deny the holocaust happened.

    49. Re:your country is fucked by andphi · · Score: 1

      I blame Victorian England. Also, the Puritans. That is to say, our attitudes are not new. They're just ones that our forebears in the Old World have already dispensed with.

      However, there's a basic concept of US jurisprudence that may be eluding the rest of the world: emotional competency. The rule of law is: Children are not mentally or emotionally equipped to make sound decisions regarding sex. Coercing them into sex (or depicting them sexually) is the Crime of Crimes. Involving them in sex (in a passive sort of way, like Indecency with a Minor, with or without a camera present) is Very Bad, and exposing them to passive depictions of sex (e.g., pornography) prematurely isn't much better.

    50. Re:your country is fucked by Mark+J+Tilford · · Score: 1

      These days? I believe that singular has been the custom since 1865.

      --
      -----------
      100% pure freak
    51. Re:your country is fucked by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This isn't to say that there are no forms of prohibited speech -- I can't just say "My neighbor eats babies for breakfast" and not expect to be sued for defamation. However, in this case there is an actual person being harmed. Likewise, if I claimed my elderly Jewish neighbor was never in a concentration camp, but tattooed his own arm to gain sympathy, I might be defending myself against a slander charge.

      You're missing something here. This isn't "prohibited speech". We don't have prohibited speech in America; the First Amendment guarantees that. You can say anything you want, including shouting fire in a crowded theater, or spreading lies about people in order to damage their reputation.

      You can, however, be held responsible for the results of your speech. That's an important distinction.

      If you shout fire in a crowded theater, your speech itself is legal, but the actions (trampled people, public endangerment, etc.) are punishable. Similarly, if you spread lies about someone and damage their reputation, you can be sued (in civil court, not criminal) for defamation. Again, notice the distinction here: if you spread lies about someone, you haven't committed a crime, as you won't be tried as a criminal. The government will not prosecute you for libel or slander. You'll be sued, which is a civil matter.

      So claiming utter falsehoods, such as denying the holocaust, cannot ever be a crime here as long as the 1st Amendment holds. And it's unlikely you'd be sued for it too, since it'd be pretty much impossible to show that your statements demonstrably harmed anyone.

    52. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you're concerned about insulting the other people on the continent, but you have no qualms about insulting the 290+ million people of the United States of America who have absolutely no relation to the stupidity you're deriding them for?

      How noble.

    53. Re:your country is fucked by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      [Stolen from a post up above]
      Off the top of my head, Germany:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zundel
      [/steal]

      I didn't say every European country. Europe is full of countries with different laws like the US is full of states with different laws.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    54. Re:your country is fucked by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see how Slashdot works.

      A post by an anonymous coward entitled "your country is fucked" is +5 insightful. Meanwhile, my response to that post, with my name attached, no pointless swear words, and at least a semi-thought out response is Flamebait.

      Brilliant.

    55. Re:your country is fucked by unitron · · Score: 1

      Which makes the time before we found out that being one of the United States of America was only voluntary up until the actual granting of statehood "those days". :-)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    56. Re:your country is fucked by Maow · · Score: 1
      In Germany you can be convicted for sharing the shareware version of wolfenstein 3d with your friends. In the USA we think that is stupid.

      Good point.

      But what's the penalty for sharing shareware in Germany?

      40 years?

      Didn't think so...

    57. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who determines what is a lie, the government? What if the Administration said "Global warming is a myth, and anyone caught repeating it will be punished?"

      Good question, and that's the exact reason I said "half-wish". If there were a trustworthy way to determine this, I'd say go for it. But really, if I were wishing for that, I suppose I might as well just wish that no one ever lied.

    58. Re:your country is fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Civics 101: freedom of speech is about protecting speech WE DON'T LIKE!

      Much of which would remain protected. There's a lot of speech I don't like that isn't provably wrong.

    59. Re:your country is fucked by gullevek · · Score: 1

      Shocking, I didn't even know my own countries (Austria) laws.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    60. Re:your country is fucked by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      So, prove them wrong, don't ban their speech. Let people say what they'd like. Nobody's ever been hurt from words.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  8. No common sense by sinistre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems common sense is abscent.

    1. Re:No common sense by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      >>> "Seems common sense is abscent

      I prefer: "Common sense is not common"

    2. Re:No common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As is proper spelling.

  9. they still dont see it by FudRucker · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    popups, spyware, viruses, trojans & worms are all part of the microsoft windows experience...

    they blame everything but the vulnerable system that propagate this kludge...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:they still dont see it by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      popups, spyware, viruses, trojans & worms are all part of the microsoft windows experience...

      Jail Gates! Jail Gates! Jail Gates!

    2. Re:they still dont see it by NineNine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they blame everything but the vulnerable system that propagate this kludge...

      You think that's a good idea? What happens when people start suing Linux developers for bugs and holes in that software? No software is perfect. Unless MS is doing this deliberately, it's not negligent. It's the nature of software.

      And you know what... MS didn't do this to these people's machines. The virus/worm/spyware writers did. They're the real criminals, but no law enforcement agencies are smart enough to be able to track these people down.

    3. Re:they still dont see it by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what about the various security holes that have been reported to Microsoft and then sat on?

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    4. Re:they still dont see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grandparent post said nothing about suing. OTOH, villifying and destroying any reputation for being a secure operating system, that's fair game.

    5. Re:they still dont see it by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1
      Unless MS is doing this deliberately, it's not negligent.
      While I agree with your sentiment that OS vendors should not be held liable for certain problems unless they are negligent, you got the definition of negligence very wrong. Negligence does not come from purposeful behavior. Instead, negligence is when a party misses the legal standard for protection of other parties against the actions of others having intent to do harm when it reasonably should have protected them.

      Simply put, negligence applies when a party has been negligent ;)

      For example: a mother who pours Draino down her child's throat is not negligent. She's a murderer. She would be negligent if she left Draino in the child's room after cleaning the sink in the child's bathroom, and then the child drank it (well, that would be up to the jury to decide, but in any case, I was just trying to demonstrate how purposefulness is not a necessary condition for negligence).
    6. Re:they still dont see it by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      this is nothing new, it has been going on since before Win95, and when the hell is microsoft and the consumers of their products going to get a clue!!!

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    7. Re:they still dont see it by gwait · · Score: 1

      I was wondering when the tired "no software is perfect" excuse for Windows would show up. You forgot the (bs) part about how virus writers only target Windows cause it's number one.

      Thankfully for victims of Microsoft's incompetence, they finally get the "install as root, run as user" model from Unix, in Vista. It's only taken them 20 years (or so).

      No it's not a perfect solution, yes, linux/unix can be cracked, but this one little insulating layer makes all the difference in the world
      between a rampant epidemic and a handful of isolated virus outbreaks.

      Condoms are not perfect, they can be broken, but nobody suggests that using condoms is a total waste of time for protecting against disease and pregnancy.

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    8. Re:they still dont see it by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1
      they blame everything but the vulnerable system that propagate this kludge...
      You think that's a good idea? What happens when people start suing Linux developers for bugs and holes in that software? No software is perfect. Unless MS is doing this deliberately, it's not negligent. It's the nature of software.

      Ignoring that you completely miss the meaning of negligence, I'd say that most of the security vulnerabilities present today are a result of negligence. Simply put, it's a well-known fact (and probably equally easy to demonstrate) that buffer overflows and internet overflows account for the vast majority of bugs that can be used as exploits. However, programmers (and by extension, consumers as well) have consistently chosen to use languages that allow for such bugs to readily exist instead of languages that greatly reduce the risk of such problems ever occurring. This is mostly done because of performance reasons.

      To make a bad car analogy, if you started selling a car with zero safety features, not even tempered glass, purely for economics/performance, you'd be very likely held liable for the "excessive" damage in any accident that occurs. You might be able to sell the car without fear of lawsuits if you adequately explain just how dangerous the vehicle could be and state the car is only to be used on private land, but pretend that you're offering any level of "safety" just because when designing the car you tried to avoid having pointy edges doesn't remove a need for the serious design considerations that have to be put into place to greatly reduce the damage from an accident.

      I don't want Linux developers or Windows developers to be sued any more than you likely do. But knowing what I know, I find it hard to ignore that developers (and their manager(s)) will often choose the riskier option, even knowing how well "no software is perfect". Consumers have the right to choose riskier software if they want to. But with platitudes of "no software is perfect" and no real discussion about serious options to greatly reduce the possible risk, consumers will never become better informed and really have the option to choose the software that won't cause them to be suddenly hosting child porn one day.

      Well, the only thing left is to cue the people who point out that by taking steps to reduce the risk and advertising it, one opens oneself up litigation whenever a security vulnerability is found. Funny how people have an innate expectation that Windows won't be "owned" to host child porn and MS isn't ever sued over it but that there'd be a serious legal case if Foo was deployed with a promise of choosing a less risky base and Foo would likely be litigated into the ground. I thought sue trolls went after companies with the most money. Or is it only while they're not established enough to seem to have competent lawyers to defend themselves?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  10. vengeance versus justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Society no longer cares about ensuring a person is guilty or deserves the punishment prior to punishing them. Because according to what we're told by certain folks .. if you support free trials, then you support criminals.

    People have the adopted the nonsensical goat head attitude of "innocent until proven guilty? well what about the victim ..the victim hadn't a trial ..why should the accused!?". Of course, after stating this masterpiece of "irrefutable logic" they decide your response is not worth listening to.

    1. Re:vengeance versus justice by sporkme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is not isolated to porn (duh). When a prosecutor has it out for you, there isn't much that can be done. Often there is a willingness to make an example for others, or to appear tough on a specific kind of crime for political benefit.

      Chris Soghoian knows what I mean. It has nothing to do with evidence - all that matters is the nature of the charges. The Duke lacrosse team knows too.

    2. Re:vengeance versus justice by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      When a prosecutor has it out for you, there isn't much that can be done.

      Go to trial with a lawyer who apprises the jurors of their lawful duty (in quite a few states anyway) to judge the law as well as the defendant. Then sue the prosecutor and all others involved for frivolous prosecution (which is a civil as well as a criminal offense) and make sure they'll never work again. Two can play at malice.

      -b.

    3. Re:vengeance versus justice by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      When a prosecutor has it out for you, there isn't much that can be done.

      Not only the prosecutor, but anybody with the power of the law. When I was about 14, I made the mistake of walking home just before curfew (11:00pM). A stolen car had been found about a block from my location. Sure enough, a cop stopped me and accused me of the theft. He kept me for questioning for about two hours. When he couldn't pin the crime on me (I didn't even know how to drive yet), he ticketed me for being out past curfew. The only reason I was out past curfew was because he had me locked in a car.

      As for fighting it in court, it was my word against his as to when he picked me up. The judge didn't believe a kid.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    4. Re:vengeance versus justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An "officer of the law" is given far too much credit their wide area of expertise and honesty. A citizen has none of this in a court of law without related degrees, job experience and witnesses if their testamony conflicts with the prosecution. I know there are good officers of the law out there, it is past time to hold yourselves to a higher standard, clean your ranks please. Need to make this a call to lawyers, elected and appointed officials of all branches including judicial, its well past time to clean your ranks. As far as the elected ones go everyone should get into that act. As someone once said: There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. The last one is getting more difficult because the supreme court said Samuel Adams was wrong when he said "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... ".

      "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
      --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

      Unfortunately in relation to the Webster quote we are being disarmed and too many believe the BS kicked out by our politicians enough to the point were too many are demanding we be disarmed more, that those accused of crimes should have more roadblocks to being declared innocent or even getting a fair trial ( too many are getting forced into accepting "lesser charges" to avoid being broken in the process of defending themselves amongst other roadblocks ), ridiculous laws are being passed to track us and make travel difficult and annoying, etc etc etc. Those porn laws might even be able to nail 90% or more of the "Joe Sixpacks" on the internet if their hard drives were searched hard enough. It certainly wouldn't take a dishonest person long to plant it there. Who do you want to send to jail today?

      Last two quotes are from here. Oh and from the same sight before anyone trys to say, like the Supreme Court incorrectly said, that the militia is the National Guard it wasn't intended that way by our forefathers, they believed like George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
        George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

      It is being said that anyone under the age of 18 is not mature enough to make a decision on their own, this is amusing and frightening. Many states like West Virginia have or had the official age of consent set at 15. Have they changed since this craziness started? Wonder if they working to bar reruns of The Beverly Hillbillies since in them "Granny" is constantly hounding "Ellie Mae" to find a groom since at nearly 18 she is an old maid! Have to wonder too if this stripping minors of their rights is related to the childhood prison system referred to as the public school system and its purported plan to train the kids for corporate and governmental subserviance. Any adult that fails to comply will be ejected from society.

    5. Re:vengeance versus justice by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      As for fighting it in court, it was my word against his as to when he picked me up. The judge didn't believe a kid. But only because you used the wrong argument. You (a kid younger than age of consent) should have claimed that the cop hold you for so long as a punishment for not performing a fellatio on him. Had you said that, the cop would still be rotting in jail today. Turn the corrupt justice system against itself, damnit!
  11. Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by hattig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you are an average non-techy person, especially one prone to getting spyware and so on, you simply cannot afford to use Windows. Hell, if it's still too much money, and 2 years of your life, the rumours, the 'no smoke without fire' retardo simpleminded shit, the stress and the upset is still too much to bear then at least do yourself a favour and install Firefox ... if you are going to visit the type of website that gets you overloaded with this type of spyware then you need to give yourself some sort of protection!

    Conversely, if you are a fan of kiddy fiddling pictures, you surely must use a Windows machine without any anti-spyware applications. And IE6.

    1. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now - let us not open up a monopoly on plausible deniability. There is plenty of room for error on a machine of any type.

    2. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      If all the laymen of the world start using Macs then we will see this type of software moving towards the Macs. There is simply no stopping a large of number of very determined people from accessing your machine, so long as you leave it on the net. I for one, as a Mac user, hope the majority of the world stays oblivious to the joys of the Mac :P

    3. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would be correct, however root exploits are a little harder to achieve on a Mac. Harder, not impossible. The Mac, BY DEFAULT has you type your password every time you want to install software. The Mac, BY DEFAULT has the root login disabled. The Mac, by default has a better infrastructure then Windows....period...and I am not a fan boy. I'll put up Linux, the Mac or any UNIX based system against the swiss cheese that is Windows XP any day. Yes, even Mac OS X and Linux are vulnerable, but the time to patch at least on Linux is very fast compared to Windows XP and the architecture is different and more secure....BY DEFAULT. They are all what Windows should have been.

      --

      Gorkman

    4. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by AdamKG · · Score: 1

      Why do people still say this? It's just plain not true.

      UNIX is 35-odd years old. It's had bugs for all 35 years. Windows has been around for a much shorter time - indeed, things like file permissions and multi-user access didn't get added until NT (and boy, does it show!). The bugs that XP has now and Vista will have for the next 5 years are the same ones that UNIX ironed out in the 70's and 80's. That's why Linux and OSX are more secure than NT/XP, and why even if more people started using Linux or OSX, they would still have a far lower vulnerability rate than Windows.

      --
      groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
    5. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I for one, as a Mac user, hope the majority of the world stays oblivious to the joys of the Mac


      Good job keeping up the stereotype of the Mac user who is an elitest asshole who thinks his choice of computer makes him better than other people.

    6. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      But then Macs will become mainstream!

      I keep my porn on Amiga formatted floppy disks.

    7. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by Zephiria · · Score: 1

      I wish i had mod points to mark you as a troll. I'm sure if macs were more popular they'd have problems too.

    8. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      That would be correct, however root exploits are a little harder to achieve on a Mac. Harder, not impossible. The Mac, BY DEFAULT has you type your password every time you want to install software.

      Irrelevant (not to mention untrue, in many cases and unreqiuired for most - assuming you are the default "admin" user setup on first install).

      The Mac, BY DEFAULT has the root login disabled.

      Also irrelevant. Elevating the typical user account to root privileges is trivial.

      I don't know how this meme of "root disabled == safe" got started, but it's _wrong_. For the vast majority of things the vast majority of malware might want to do, elevated privileges are _not_ required. They're a nice bonus, but far, far from essential.

      The Mac, by default has a better infrastructure then Windows....period...and I am not a fan boy.

      The "security infrastructure" of OS X, which is based on traditional unix, cannot hold a candle to that of Windows NT. 10.5 might be better, but that remains to be seen.

      I'll put up Linux, the Mac or any UNIX based system against the swiss cheese that is Windows XP any day. Yes, even Mac OS X and Linux are vulnerable, but the time to patch at least on Linux is very fast compared to Windows XP and the architecture is different and more secure....BY DEFAULT. They are all what Windows should have been.

      In almost every way measurable, the architecture of Windows is superior to that of OS X and Linux. The vast majority of "security problems" in Windows have _zero_ to do with low level architecture or bugs.

    9. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by hattig · · Score: 1

      Well you didn't, so bad luck. You can apply my reasoning to Linux too, if that would make you happier.

    10. Re:Is a Mac expensive compared to this? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Bwahahaaa! Don't make me laugh! Windows security superior to Mac OS X or UNIX? Ok....all of those exploits are NOT on Windows they are on UNIX....ok...sure....

      Yes it's trivial to elevate a local user to root, but it's not as easy as it seems. First, on the Mac, you'd have to be flagged as a Administrative user. EVEN THEN it prompts you to type your password in when you you have to install software. Sure, you an sudo su to get a real root prompt, but, again, you'd have to type in a password.

      Password's are not always secure that's one thing that we should all know by now, but if you pick a good password, unless there's a exploit or unless it's easy to guess, it would take a long time to figure out the password via brute force.

      Mac OS X stores all of it's security information in the Netinfo database. Netinfo started out on the old NextOS as did most of OS X. While traditional UNIX files like /etc/passwd exist, you still need a entry into the NetInfo database in order to log in to the desktop in multiuser mode. The only time the standard UNIX security is used is when in single user mode. Check out: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2002/10/22/mac forunix.html

      Root logins being disabled IS safer, but no where did I say it made you perfectly safe. Not only do you have to be flagged as a Admin user (as on Windows), you also get prompted for your password every time (not a default behavior on Windows XP) you need to do a Administrative feature like installing software.

      --

      Gorkman

  12. To quote the parent.... by x1n933k · · Score: 1, Insightful
    "It means that computers are not safe," said Jeannie Bandy. "I don't want to have one in my house. Under even under the strictest rules and the strictest security, your computer is vulnerable."

    Ignorance or uneducated? You're son is on the computer in the den collecting child porn. Do you all avoid the Den? Do you not know the simplest ways to check cookies and history files to see whats there or if they are missing?

    I mean, I'm 22 now. When I was 16 was able to surf porn but my mom barely knew the keyboard from the mouse. My friend on the other had had a school teacher for a mom who spent time setting up browser and firewall so Jimmy could only play Jedi Knights online and surf a few special sites. Not to mention doing random *jpg searches on the hard drive just to see what shows up.

    I feel the Teacher was treated unfairly and the Kid was also not treated fairly. That kid is 16, he knew what he was looking at and doing.

    [J]

    1. Re:To quote the parent.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true. I do belive you can use things like group policy and internet explorer settings to lock down your system...but that would require reading. Reformatting is where the money is at, it just takes a couple clicks and your done... Unless you're using a Raid controller and the Raid drivers are located on a floppy and the only 3 1/2 floppy drive you have is USB and you have an older mother board that doesn't allow the USB to cloak as the floppy drive. Slightly more of pain then but other then that...

    2. Re:To quote the parent.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude! I was 15 and knew all about clearing address bar history, cache folders and cookies.. and the occasional deleting of bookmarks from IE that would get installed, (this was before Firebird and before I heard of Mozilla)

    3. Re:To quote the parent.... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heh, when I was 16, I bought my own computer (333MHz yada yada). I caught my dad using mine for porn.

      When I caught him, I told him to save it to (my documents)/homework/images/ .
      Guess what... My mom found out and threw a FUCKING fit.

      --
    4. Re:To quote the parent.... by x1n933k · · Score: 1

      Indeed so did I. However by clearing cache, cookies and etc you also leave 1 piece of evidence: The one that you were looking at something and cleared everything to destroy what exactly you did. So parents can note this as did Jimmy's mom.

    5. Re:To quote the parent.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, your mom had a fucking fit? She must have really liked what she found!

    6. Re:To quote the parent.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kid is 16, he knew what he was looking at and doing.

      Are you kidding? I've met people of all ages that don't know the difference between a "close" button and an image of a close button used in a popup web link. He was 16, big deal. He was surfing for porn, not reading slashdot. He obviously didn't know how to keep his computer safe.

  13. Welcome to Anarcho-Tyranny Population You. by mikelieman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But hey, Obedience to The Law is all that matters.*

    *Excepting the Bush Administration.

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    1. Re:Welcome to Anarcho-Tyranny Population You. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Troll? It's true.

  14. In this case it was an overzelous Prosecutor by Bananatree3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It appears, as in most cases like this, the prosecutor was trying to make an example of this boy. The judge actually suggested that the boy's family appeal the decision, as the judge could not believe why the prosecutor wanted to keep the "Sex offender" charge even though he had dropped the child pornography offense. This boy finally cleared his name, but not without horrendous legal wrangling. Sad, very sad.

    1. Re:In this case it was an overzelous Prosecutor by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It appears, as in most cases like this, the prosecutor was trying to make an example of this boy.

      And instead, he made an example of Arizona. Applying unjust law, if there's enough press, sheds light on injustice.

      Suppose you were hiring someone to take care of your kid. You found a candidate for the job, but you learned they were a convicted sex offender against minors. "Oohh, I guess that rules out this per-- oh wait, they were convicted in Arizona, where "child molester" doesn't actually mean anything. Ok, you're hired."

      Arizona just undermined itself. Be ridiculous with labels, and you end up only labeling yourself.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:In this case it was an overzelous Prosecutor by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Oohh, I guess that rules out this per-- oh wait, they were convicted in Arizona, where "child molester" doesn't actually mean anything. Ok, you're hired."

      Until TV news anchors show up at your door demanding to know why you're hiring a convicted sex offender, and both of you get fired because protesters are making your company lose money over your decision. Watch TV some day, fucking up everyone's lives is quality prime time material!

      Arizona just undermined itself. Be ridiculous with labels, and you end up only labeling yourself.

      Pfft. The label has been ridiculous from the start. Public indecency in many states is a sex offense, and you're added to the registry on the second time, whether a minor sees you or not. Alabama will register you for "obscene bumper stickers" (what about those popular truck mudflaps sporting a woman's silhouette, are they "obscene"? Miller test time! Who wants to ruin their life to see whether shitty beer is shitty or not?) Googlized version of pdfd version of an excel spreadsheet (yay!) listing registrable offenses by state.

      Add to that the fact that as far as "being a sex offender" goes, raping 3 year olds is apparently just as heinous as having sex with your 17 year old girlfriend, or taking home a 24 year old who didn't seem drunk until she woke up and had no clue where she was or who you were, and the whole thing turns out to be a horrid mess, but somebody has to think of the children! No matter how ridiculous it gets, no politician will touch it, because anyone who does would be opening the floodgates for monsters to rape your little girls.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:In this case it was an overzelous Prosecutor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This case is in fact an accurate representation of arizona. I've lived here for a few years and it's the first thing I noticed... in a very big way. It's not just the prosecutor either, the previous one was just as bad.

    4. Re:In this case it was an overzelous Prosecutor by dryeo · · Score: 1

      This is one of the problems of voting in prosecuters (and Judges etc). You get prosecuters more interested in getting (re)elected then serving justice.
      Best way to get reelected in certain states is to be seen as hard on sex criminals. Or at least not to be accused of being soft on crime by the opposition.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:In this case it was an overzelous Prosecutor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the flip side of all this is Japan where their sex laws state it isn't illegal if they aren't showing any pubic hair. At least that is how their laws were only about 5 years ago, I haven't checked recently. So this resulted in lots of shaved pubic regions and people getting away on the technicality of really young people don't have pubic hair, as well as really young people shaving down there too. Anywhere you go, the world is fucked up.

  15. The American legal system by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Informative

    has become nothing more than part of the Prison-industrial complex. The concept of justice is no longer in the picture and just gets in the way of the profits.

    --
    What?
  16. The forensics are tough by spywhere · · Score: 5, Interesting

    WHen a Windows machine gets really infested with spyware, it's tough to sort out the chickens from the eggs.
    Did a user to to a porn site that downloaded spyware that brought down kiddie porn, or did somebody intentionally go to a kiddie porn site?

    I've never found pictures of kids on a customer's PC (thank God), but I have done some investigations on "porned" and infested PCs: it's hard enough for an IT pro to figure out which came first. When the cops are doing the investigating, I expect they'll come to whatever conclusion makes the suspect look guilty.

    1. Re:The forensics are tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't "innocent until proved guilty" and "Beyond all reasonable doubt" count for anything any more?

    2. Re:The forensics are tough by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Short answer: No. Long answer: It hasn't since a bit after the end of WWII.

    3. Re:The forensics are tough by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >it's hard enough for an IT pro to figure out which came first
      The guy, usually. That's what all the girls around here complain about, anyway.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    4. Re:The forensics are tough by rjb · · Score: 1

      well, actually there is a very basic rule in criminal law: you are to be presumed innocent, until proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. what we are looking at are failures to apply this very rule.

  17. This has affirmed my aversion to windows by greg_barton · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Are my kids EVER going to use windows?

    Hell. No.

    I'm not going to allow such uncontrolled events as described in the post to happen, if I can help it. The only way I can help it is to have an OS running in my home that can be secured. That means MacOS or Linux. That and a hefty firewall. :)

    1. Re:This has affirmed my aversion to windows by DesertBlade · · Score: 1

      Remember that the average person can barely keep windows going, how in the hell are the going to install Linux?

      No matter how great an OS and if Linux is installed on every PC, there will still be people installing SSH (because it is Secure!) and having root passwords like 12345.

      Linux boxes get hacked all the time. They become another bot. Windows bots are nicely bundled with spyware.

      Microsoft needs to bundle in a anti-spyware,anti-virus and a real firewall with Windows. Wait, they tried and third party software developers threatened to sue. Don't want them to have a monopoly on tools that can secure their OS.

      --
      Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
    2. Re:This has affirmed my aversion to windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You better teach them how to properly flip a burger too, because you just destroyed any chance any of them have of getting a good office job.

      Way to go douchebag.

    3. Re:This has affirmed my aversion to windows by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Yes, because children (or people in general) are completely incapable of learning how to use Linux.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    4. Re:This has affirmed my aversion to windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux users.. with children? It just doesn't sound right to me. :)

    5. Re:This has affirmed my aversion to windows by greg_barton · · Score: 1
      Linux boxes get hacked all the time.

      Really?

      Give me one example of this. One case of an end user's linux install being compromised.

      Just one...
    6. Re:This has affirmed my aversion to windows by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
    7. Re:This has affirmed my aversion to windows by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A two year old article is all you can do?

      And, straight from the article, "The mi2g study concentrated on 'overt digital attacks' and didn't include more general forms of attack such as viruses and worms." So even the (pitiful) evidence you've provided doesn't include the most common forms of attack. The mi2g study was on manual forms of attack. Pop quiz... which is more likely to happen: a hacker sitting down at your computer, or a remote attack through your internet connection?

      I swear. Microsoft apologists are getting weaker every day.

    8. Re:This has affirmed my aversion to windows by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with letting kids use a Windows PC. Providing all networking hardware is physically disabled.

    9. Re:This has affirmed my aversion to windows by DesertBlade · · Score: 1

      The number one reason you get hacked is through weak security. You can every gizmo installed but one weak password and a decent brute force attack and you are done.

      A properly conifured Windows box is just as secure as a properly configured Linux box. Linux suffers from port-scans, SSH attacks, irc bots, brute force attacks, etc. Windows has virues and worms.

      I am no windows fan-boy and I use linux servers. I won't say that Linux is not headache free and that I don't have to worry about security. Expecting average joe to be able to set-up and maintain a secure linux enviroment is not going to happen.

      --
      Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
  18. This is just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... as smokers are treated by the righteous witch hunters.

  19. Let's go help Matt Bandy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our support goes out to Matt Bandy, a fellow /.er.

  20. Don't wanna be labeled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definitely would be bad to be labeled a sex offender. I recall something on the news recently where locals used the sex offenders' database to hunt down sex offenders and rub them out. Also, I think in jail it's considered better to have killed another man then to have sexually assaulted a child or woman.

    I think spyware/malware should be considered - the punishment is literally exile.

  21. With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this wouldn't be an issue. There are ways to determine (using system logs, install logs, and the vast information available in the system registry) when content arrived and by what method. When it was determined that the system was being remote-controlled, the boy was spared a lifetime of embarrassment.

    It' sad to think that the prosecutor was more interested in the conviction than the truth.

    As a forensic computer examiner, I'm not always given the opportunity to come to the correct conclusions based on evidence because that's not what I'm asked to do (and if I go beyond what I was asked to do, the client just won't pay for the extra work.) The legal system in this country rewards those who win, who are not always those who tell the truth.

    --


    "Lame" - Galaxar
    1. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      I'm not always given the opportunity to come to the correct conclusions based on evidence because that's not what I'm asked to do (and if I go beyond what I was asked to do, the client just won't pay for the extra work.)

      can you elaborate on that a little? i'm imagining some sort of "find me evidence that points towards this conclusion, and nothing else...is it really that bad? what if you did the extra work, found out the kid wasn't responsible(for example, in this case), and told them that? they would refuse to pay?

    2. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      It's not that, exactly. It's not easy to commit time to a project that the client didn't authorize. When offering services to a client, they will choose the services they wish to pay for, or that which they believe fits the order to produce evidence. An order may be simply, return all email messages between 1/04 and 1/07 present on the computer.

      I can't speak for examiners who actually work child-porn cases....I haven't and hope I never work one of those cases.....but, I can imagine an order to produce all images on a computer. This may or may not account the method in which the messages arrived on the computer. The examiner may follow the order and produce X number of messages with full paths and some metadata about the messages (creation and last accessed dates, EXIF data, etc) Those images would be reviewed and the ones not responsive would not be submitted as evidence. A good examiner might say "hey, this message was in c:\ \hackers-den\hidden-photos\, it might not really belong to the computer owner", but I have little faith in humanity, so I don't think there are many good examiners.

      I would imagine that if the boys computer was being used by a hacker, those images were in a location not normally accessed by the general users of the system, or perhaps there was evidence that the system was being remote controlled....but if the examiner was ordered to produce only images, he may have done just that. Think of an auto mechanic who was told that the car wasn't shifting....he may discover that the transmission had a problem and fixed it without knowing that the driver was driving the car in second gear exclusively. He did what he was asked, but if he'd been given the opportunity to investigate, he'd have found that the real problem existed between the seat and steering wheel.

      There is an opportunity for justice to occur, if the defendant has an examiner to investigate the evidence, but again the examiner may perform only the tasks he's asked to perform (what the client can afford). Most examiners aren't cheap.

      In my business, we deal with corporate clients. One corporation accuses another of something and the evidence preservation order is issued. We arrive to collect and produce the evidence. Email is most common, so we're asked to retrieve all messages for a particular date range and a set of custodians. Those messages are reviewed by the law firm and we move on to the next job.

      Our clients don't always choose to use all of the services we suggest. We may offer de-duplication (removal of identical or near-identical messages..like a single message to many recipients would result in a recovered message for all custodians who were recipients, would be reduced to a single message), content filtering (production of messages containing certain keywords), spam filtering, statistics, among others.... The client doesn't always want to spend the extra money for these services.... As with everything else, it's always about money.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    3. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by JakartaDean · · Score: 1
      this wouldn't be an issue. There are ways to determine (using system logs, install logs, and the vast information available in the system registry) when content arrived and by what method. When it was determined that the system was being remote-controlled, the boy was spared a lifetime of embarrassment.

      As a forensic computer examiner...

      Okay, I'll ask you then. An earlier poster submitted:

      The 'bots' on his PC uploaded kiddie porn to a Yahoo Group. Yahoo notified the authorities with his IP address.
      Is this likely the result of a bot? I've never heard of a bot posting to a Yahoo Group, and AFAIK you have to register for any Yahoo Group, using one of those character obfuscation .jpgs, which is supposed to stop bots. So, we can assume the kid was registered to the group, and the bot knew he was a member of the group, which seems to stretch credibility -- especially as the "forensic expert" interviewed didn't mention finding the specific bot that caused this to happen.
      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    4. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      It' sad to think that the prosecutor was more interested in the conviction than the truth.

      All prosecutors are more interested in the conviction than the truth. Every single one.

      Go back and re-read that, I'm serious.

      Prosecutors do not get re-elected for finding the truth, or upholding justice. They are solely judged on convictions. Look at this case, look at the duke rape case. Can you picture what the TV and radio ads for the opponent would have said if they decided not to prosecute those cases?
      I'm not making excuses, clearly many of them are dicks (certainly the duke one), but lets also partially blame the system we put into place that values them only for number of convictions.

      Additionally, every single defense attorney is more interested in defending their client than the truth. Sure you might find one who refuses a particularly horrible case, but they will not make a career out of following their conscience or they will starve.

      How about a home inspector who actually finds real problems with houses? Do that too much and you lose the referrals from real estate agents, which is where most of them get business.

      A relevant one in Pennsylvania is road construction. Imagine if the road crews actually fixed roads? Thousands of people who stand around eating every summer on the side of the road would be out of a job.

      Or consider the police. Pretend everyone in a town agreed to follow all traffic laws (especially speed limits) for a couple of months. I'll bet a police officer or two would be fired for not writing tickets. Or would they invent traffic offenses to avoid that?

      Why do we expect certain people in certain jobs to do things when it is not those things that their job performance is judged on? Or worse, expect them to do something that would remove the need for their job?

      Finkployd

    5. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      I can't say definitively (because I have no first hand knowledge), as I understand it, the reason for the kapcha verification phrases/passwords (image based words) getting more and more unreadable because the optical character recognition that is used gets better every day.

      It wouldn't be difficult to determine if the user had visited the site by visiting the typedurl history in the registry, or the recent history in internet explorer, the cookie folder, and browser history. There are ways to clear those locations.

      I'd be suprised if the judge changed his mind based on a speculation by an examiner. There must have been some compelling evidence to show that the boy was not responsible.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    6. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      All prosecutors are more interested in the conviction than the truth. Every single one. I can't say that I disagree, but I can still be disturbed that this is the norm. It would be nice to see some ethics introducted into the justice system...
      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    7. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by pla · · Score: 1

      this wouldn't be an issue. There are ways to determine (using system logs, install logs, and the vast information available in the system registry) when content arrived and by what method.

      No. You can't.

      The "system" logs on XP barely contain enough information to track down serious errors in the hardware or OS (and often, not even enough for that. The install logs only log programs that go through the Windows Installer, which virtually no spyware or virus does. The registry only contains what apps themselves put there - Again, spyware and virii try to keep a low profile, in general. And file timestamps only tell you as much as the last program to touch them wants you to know.



      As a forensic computer examiner

      ...It scares the hell out of me that you would trust the logs on a compromised system.



      When it was determined that the system was being remote-controlled, the boy was spared a lifetime of embarrassment.

      And the asshole prosecutor still felt a need to "punish" the kid for doing what all 16 year old boys do - Steal their dads' playboys and share them with friends.

      "Land of the free," indeed.

    8. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      ...It scares the hell out of me that you would trust the logs on a compromised system. It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of collecting the evidence and coming to conclusions based on what is found. Trust isn't part of the equation. I'm not one to jump to conclusions without good proof.

      When I speak of system logs, that includes all logs found on the system, not just what is found in the MS Event Viewer. Many applications leave their own logs in various locations that may not be apparent when the system is examined. That is, of course, the point of my original post...
      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    9. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "It' sad to think that the prosecutor was more interested in the conviction than the truth."

      Its not sad. Its a fucking travesty and it should piss all of us off in a very serious way.

      If prosecutors are willing and able to harrass and persecute a child in this manner, what is going to happen to someone over 30 who looks slightly shady? Not to beat a dead horse but look at Nifong and that whole Duke mess.

      Something needs to be done. I'm not saying that I know what it is, but when THIS happens in the "name of justice and truth" it makes me want to reach for my rifle.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    10. Re:With proper forensic procedures and analysis... by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Is this likely the result of a bot? I've never heard of a bot posting to a Yahoo Group, and AFAIK you have to register for any Yahoo Group...

            I'll take a crack at this. I get new member registration attempts night and day on my web site. When they are successful, they post their web site URL with their member info. The wording varies greatly, but all oriented to tempt someone to click on that link.

            Now why do you think they go to all that effort? Because they really, really want people from all over the internet who happen upon on of their spam posts to come and visit for a spell? Nope, nice people have plenty of better things to do than that.

            It's because when you click on that link, it's running an exploit kit to own your PC, and ultimately, you.

            So these guys, and you can be sure they are guys, spend full time trying to set a trap for you and everyone else. They're hunters and gatherers of suckers. What's your weakness?

            Whether it's something forbidden you might be tempted to click on, or an offer of something free, or a link that lures those who might sympthize and want to help, for everyone there are traps from these Chinese, Russians, and others who may even think they are entitled to anything they can steal. They certainly believe Americans are rich and clueless and deserve whatever their stupidity will bear.

            You listed all the reasons it's most logical to plant those illicit traps from an owned PC. You use their PC, their identity, you do awful things to lure people even lower than you, and the click doesn't even get what one thought he was getting.

            All he gets is owned. Just like the person whose PC was used to do it.

        rd

  22. At this point there are 2 evils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those dealing in kiddie porn and those using it as an excuse to persecute innocent people, I hope society can rid itself of both.

    As for the playboy conviction; the guy needs to appeal, get that conviction overturned and then sue for costs.

  23. Funny.. by moehoward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Funny, but noboby gets labeled a "murderer" for life. Murderers are released from prison every day. In fact, hundreds of them. They serve their sentence and move on. No reporting themselves to their neighbors. No exclusion zones. No "registered murderer" lists.

    I'd actually rather live next door to sex offenders rather than next to convicted drunk drivers. Why am I not notified when a convicted drunk driver moves in next door? Probably a lot more dangerous to me and my kids. Right?

    The really weird thing is that neither side of the political spectrum dare oppose the whole "sex offender" legal agenda thing. Its a bit like global warming. Groupthink.

    "Think of the children!!" Wait, I didn't mean it THAT way.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Funny.. by fatduck · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's because sex offenders are unholy merchants of sin, corrupting our children with the devil's ways. Next you'll want notification when a priest moves into your neighborhood.

      --
      Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
    2. Re:Funny.. by kaufmanmoore · · Score: 1

      Its goes on your record, try getting a good job with a felony on your record. If you are concerned you are living next door to an ex-con look up his records

    3. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every parent wants to believe that their child is cute enough to be the target of a sexual predator. But in most cases it just isn't true.

    4. Re:Funny.. by Guuge · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The really weird thing is that neither side of the political spectrum dare oppose the whole "sex offender" legal agenda thing. Its a bit like global warming. Groupthink.

      You got it backward. Global warming is contested by politicians, but accepted by the brains in the field. Sex offender registries are contested by the brains but generally accepted by politicians.

      Furthermore, you don't seem to know what 'groupthink' means. I don't mean to pick on you personally, but it had to be said.

    5. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      part of me wants to laugh, the rest of me hopes you don't live anywhere near me.

    6. Re:Funny.. by troll+-1 · · Score: 1

      It almost seems like getting drunk and killing a child with your car is less of a crime that possessing pictures of them naked on your computer. I read a lot about people getting lengthy prison sentences for child porn, yet with DUI vehicular manslaughter people often get off with probation.

    7. Re:Funny.. by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a difference between something showing up on your background check (which usually costs money and--unless you have a very unique name--requires that your social security number be known) and someone preemptively notifying your neighbors. More than once a "sex offender"'s house has been burned down...

      The problem is, sexual assault is not the worst thing in the world. A serial child killer who tortured every single child (in non-sexual ways) before killing them would, upon release, not be stuck with such a label and preemptive notification. A college student who got drunk and had sex in the bushes at a local park (after hours, when there weren't any kids around) WOULD be stuck with the "sex offender" label and preemptive notification (at least in some jurisdictions. There is a difference between "sex offender" and "sexual predator", but regardless, both are still subject to additional restrictions not faced by "conventional" criminals.) T

      This might seem like an especially radical thing to say, but being raped is NOT the end of the world. It is completely possible to recover from being raped or molested and go on to live a happy life. However being murdered IS, by defintion, the end of (your) world.

    8. Re:Funny.. by bckrispi · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Funny, but noboby gets labeled a "murderer" for life. Murderers are released from prison every day. In fact, hundreds of them. They serve their sentence and move on. No reporting themselves to their neighbors. No exclusion zones. No "registered murderer" lists.
      In Arizona, if you're convicted of a Child Porn crime, you're lucky if you even *get* released to be put on a Sex Offender's list. If the pictures in question are of a minor under 15, that means that every picture found will draw a ten year sentence - minimum to be served consecutively. If you posess ten pictures, you're going away for life - case closed. Several years ago, a school teacher went to trial for posession of 20 CP images. There was no evidence that he did anything beyond this. He didn't share, he didn't molest, he didn't produce, he just posessed. He is now into the fourth year of a two-hundred year sentence.

      Maricopa county prosecutors (especially Reichsmarshall Andrew Thomas) use this fact to extort harsh plea bargains (with this, among other crimes). So if you want to protest your innocence, you have one of two choices: Risk a trial where a loss means you never see the light of day again, or cop a bargain, regardless of your guilt, which will usually still keep you in prison for 10-25.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    9. Re:Funny.. by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The really weird thing is that neither side of the political spectrum dare oppose the whole "sex offender" legal agenda thing. Its a bit like global warming. Groupthink.

      I don't think it's really a matter of group think. Some of it is, of course, and some more of it is the fact that you can score cheap political points by saying "let's torture all sex offenders to death, huzzah!"

      The problem is you, and me. It's the public. If a politican said something like, "I think we should re-think our sex offender laws," can you imagine what would happen? Pundits, talk show hosts and everybody in the opposing party would instantly paint them in a way that basically amounts to "they have nothing against somebody raping your child." It doesn't matter that that is not what he said. It doesn't matter that he might have been talking about cases like two 16 year olds who videotaped themselves having sex being brought up on child pornography charges or something similarly absurd, rather than legitimate sexual predators. Once he's hung with that label, he's in deep trouble.

      "Senator Jones doesn't care about your children. He proposed a re-examination of the laws that put child sex offenders behind bars and require you to be notified if one moves in next door. Vote for Bob. He knows exactly where he stands on sexual predators. (Paid for by Parents Who Love And Protect Their Children.)"

      And it would work. Partially because people get hysterical whenever they hear the words "sex offender." Partially because people are so horribly uninformed that if they saw an ad like that, they wouldn't bother to see what the other side of the story was--they'd just figure their Senator needed a new job. Partially because it's good television to skewer the Senator by bringing his most rabid opponents in with his official spokesperson to give "fair and balanced" coverage--conflict sells, and always has.

      There are lot of places where blame can be placed, but it ultimately has to be placed right at the feet of the voters. Voters who don't vote at all. Voters who don't care to see two sides of the issues. All of the things I mentioned are horrible, and they come from different sources--tv networks, politicians, political action groups, etc--but the bottom line is if it didn't work, it wouldn't be done.

      We, as a collective voting body, don't allow free thought. More importantly, we don't allow complex opinions. Your opinion may not be any more complex than you can fully explain in a 10 second sound bite. This is, very unfortunately, the attention span of the average American voter as it relates to the people who will be representing them in government.

      As sad as it is for me to say so, when so many people act like that, we deserve the politicians we get. We deserve the stupid laws we get.

    10. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He used the word 'groupthink' correctly, so there seems to be no reason to doubt that he knows what it means.

    11. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked for a while in the human services and the justice system, and the conventional wisdom in those kinds of plases is that (almost no) sex offenders ever truly reform, because (almost all) don't think what they have done is wrong in the first place. Sex offenders in prison/treatment might learn what to say to therapists and parole officers, they might decide it is not worth the punishment, or they might just learn how not to get caught. But no one really changes their sexuality.

      I am not arguing that this is true...I am sure that there are studies that have been done, but I haven't read them, and I sure am not a social worker or a criminologist. But I do think this is (part of) the thinking behind the registration laws.

    12. Re:Funny.. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Sex offenders don't get rehabilitated (often even with chemical castration). Many other criminals don't get rehabilitated either (thanks to a shitty criminal punishment system), but the incidence is absolutely much higher than with sex offenders.

      Anyway, that's why. I don't agree with it, but that's why.

    13. Re:Funny.. by moehoward · · Score: 1


      I think that part of the point of the article is that the definition of "sex offender" is overly broad. Ask the average person, and they will tell you that a sex offender is the same thing as a child molester or a pedophile. The definition of "sex offender" goes anywhere from a 14-year old girl who kicks a classmate in the nuts all the way to the Polly Klass type of offender. But, the stigma of the "sex offender" label is that of the latter.

      Also, you need a reality check when you claim that castration is a possible course of action. Many so-called "sex offenders" are female. Do you see how you are playing into the stereotype? Perhaps you made my point for me.

      --
      "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    14. Re:Funny.. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Its goes on your record, try getting a good job with a felony on your record. If you are concerned you are living next door to an ex-con look up his records

      Criminal background checks usually at least require a fee. Sex offender lists are put up by many states for access on the Internet for free. Not to mention some states actively notify neighbors. In short, yes, you're more screwed if you schtupp a 16-yo girl at age 18 than if you kill someone in a barfight. Not sure how that makes sense.

      -b.

    15. Re:Funny.. by caudron · · Score: 1

      Recidivism rates in sexual offenders are through the roof. There is a reason beyond "ZOMG Think of teh Childx0rs!" Recidivism rates on murder aren't nearly as high. Recidivism rates on drunk driving are a moot point because after 3 times in most states the driver loses the right to drive, which ends that problem.

      I'm wary whenever the government wants to /perpetually/ punish a person for a crime even long after the state-established correctionary period, and it gives me the willies to know there is a whole class of crimes for which they can disregard the whole "unreasonable punishment" thing, BUT sex offenders are a known class of criminal that does have serious difficulty stopping their behavior.

      Now, the problem is that if this is true, then it points to an underlying biology (drive in the face of clear negative consequences is nearly always born in the genes somewhere) which means we are punishing people for who they are rather than what they do. No, I'm not feeling sorry for the molester or rapist, but it is sad to know that the person apparently truly can't NOT do it and we can't NOT punish them for it. It's a messed up cycle.

      Not to get all Clockwork Orange about it, but maybe one day soon these sorts of behaviors can be deleted from the would-be offenders. Til then, I'm gonna have to side with the government on this one. If the chances of a molester doing it again are great enough, then we need to acknowledge it and protect ourselves. The Constitution is ther to protect the individual, but it is not a societal suicide pact. Sadly, there are things that can and do preempt our individual rights at times. And I don't say that lightly.

      Tom Caudron
      http://tom.digitalelite.com/

      --
      -Tom
    16. Re:Funny.. by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      So what's the solution? We've got democracy, and now we're trying to spread it. What would you suggest be done?

    17. Re:Funny.. by moehoward · · Score: 1

      My point is that the definition of "sexual offender" has been diluted to the point of being meaningless. There is such a huge range of "offenses" that now fall into that category. I do believe you and I do know that TRUE sex offenders are almost impossible to rehabilitate. The problem is that is is REALLY convenient to put others into that category. Read some other responses to my initial post above your post.

      Also, murderers are pretty tough cookies as well. As are drunk drivers. As are heroin addicts. As are cocaine addicts. As are crack addicts. As are repeat-parking-code violators. As are jay walkers. How do you draw your line again? Could it be..... media-induced fear? No. No freakin way.

      Moe

      --
      "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    18. Re:Funny.. by geminidomino · · Score: 1, Funny

      Next you'll want notification when a priest moves into your neighborhood. Way ahead of you.
    19. Re:Funny.. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      You're right that the label goes too far. In another thread, I mention how in Florida if a female flashes someone during spring break, she can be arrested and entered into the system as a sex offender. For the rest of her life, she'll have that label... because she flashed someone on spring break. Ridiculous.

      Anyway, I think you took my comment about castration incorrectly. If you reread my comment, you will see it was a mere parenthetical suggesting the extent to which rehabilitation does not work.

    20. Re:Funny.. by faolan_devyn_aodfin · · Score: 1
      I'd actually rather live next door to sex offenders rather than next to convicted drunk drivers. Why am I not notified when a convicted drunk driver moves in next door? Probably a lot more dangerous to me and my kids. Right?


      You sir have a great point. But this our great nation, the USA, we are talking about. It kind of reminds me of an episode of "Moral Orale" where Orale and his friend bring the dead back to like because he is convinced they are sinning by ignoring Jesus' commandment in the New Testament to not forsake the gift of life. He turns everyone buried at the cemetery into zombies and they wreak havoc in the town. Everyone is running from them screaming.

      At the end of the episode it is revealed that the true sin was that the reanimated corpses were not wearing any clothing. This is what offended and scared the townspeople despite the fact that the zombies were eating their brains and causing a boatload of destruction.

      Sometimes satires can be closer to the truth than we want them to be and in this case the good folks at Adult Swim are onto something here. Namely, the fact that this level of religious fury of sexuality has gone too far. Labellings sex offenders for life when there are far worse crimes out there is crass. As far as that goes the repeat offense rate for thieves, murderers, drunk and reckless drivers are much higher but that doesn't stop the government from crying wolf on the issue.

      Why do I not have the right to know whether or not my neighbour was convicted of say--DUI--but the sex offender has to wear a scarlet letter? Because people are convinced such laws will keep them safe. I'm totally against the scarlet letter concept with maybe the exception of DUI (they should have special plates) simply because it implies that they still are a criminal and have not repaid their debt to society. I simply am not convinced that it will keep me safe from them repeating their crime. If they are going to commit more crimes in the future then nothing will stop them from doing so and to think otherwise is foolish--the only way to truly prevent a repeat offense is to either employ capital punishment for every crime or lifetime imprisonment, both are extreme, immoral, and would do nothing to further prevent other from committing the same crimes. In fact it may even make it worse.
      --
      Pagan? Geek? Check out #paganism on Freenode IRC
    21. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that a large percentage of priests are sex offenders, yes.

    22. Re:Funny.. by faolan_devyn_aodfin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Odd that this is coming from the same nation which in it's constitution defines excessive jail time as "cruel and unusual."

      --
      Pagan? Geek? Check out #paganism on Freenode IRC
    23. Re:Funny.. by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you entirely on the principal, the Constitution explicitly forbids excessive bail or fines, not excessive jail times. A lawyer may argue (and I believe that the teacher is appealing on this) that the life sentence should be considered 'cruel and unusual'.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    24. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the recidivism arguement is a valid one factually, it still doesn't justify sex-offender registration. If you are so sure that a person is that much of a danger to others, KEEP HIM IN FUCKING PRISON.



      Being on a list and moving a superficial distance away from schools does not at all prevent anybody from continuing their predatory behaviour. By definition a sexual predator has already demonstrated his* willingness to break serious laws, and if he truly is incapable of curbing this behaviour (which i doubt is true but whatev), driving an extra mile or two to kidnap a child and maybe getting a motel room is not a big deal at all. It is a senseless, ineffective, and immoral 'solution' to the problem.



      * I use male pronouns for expediency here, not to imply that all sex offenders are male.

    25. Re:Funny.. by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      There is no one way of doing Democracy. Democracy does not mean "voting," and so on. (What are we going to vote on?)

      One idea I've heard is to create bodies of citizens, selected randomly, who, when an issue comes up, are given a week to talk and research an issue, and then publish a report on what they think about it, and possible things that could be done.

      You get (A) ordinary people, (B) performing research and thinking and talking about things, and then (C) issuing a representation of what they think.

      This way, you don't get "OMG F$*$ing Panic!" Rather, you get something more like a jury decision. When the media receives the representations, they then can say, "Well, here's what citizen's council X thought," and an explanation from "the people."

      Whether people would pay attention to this, I don't know. There's probably a way to make it work, though.

    26. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing how many people here miss the point. You can be labelled a "sex offender" for pissing in the woods in parts of the US. This label just doesn't mean anything anymore. Stop using it, it doesn't make sense and makes you look stupid.

    27. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is sadly, but completely true, and just goes to show the difference between law and fairness.

      I have several friends who are convicted "sex offenders", with their pictures on our state's Web page and everything. None of them are or were rapists, molesters, or pedophiles. One, who was only 18, spent a year in jail and is on probation for the next 5, for having nudie pics that he downloaded of someone who it turned out was 16. Apparently, that's "kiddie porn". Another one was 16, sent his 15 year old girl friend a nude picture of himself (that she asked for), her parents found it, had him arrested, and now he's a sex offender. The last one was 16, had sex with his girlfriend (who was 6 months younger than him), and not only got charged with "statutory rape", but is now a convicted child molester.

      Is this fair, or rational? No. But it's legal.

    28. Re:Funny.. by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
      Yes, but the document that contains the part about "cruel and unusual punishment" is a historical artifact, and is not seen as either a guide to or a check on government power. It has some procedural weight, in defining the terms and requirements for office, but not much else. It has a few fans, but even those generally pick and choose, so the end result is that no one really supports it. The left wing supports Amendments I, and III-X. The right wing supports Amendment II. The left wing thinks the right wing is living in the distant past and is taking things out of historical context, and the right wing thinks the left wing is filled with communists who hate America and want the terrorists to win.

      And that's the mainstream--if you go to the poles, the far left wing thinks the right wing is a neo-Nazi movement, and the far right wing thinks the left wing is the actual, real-life tool of Luciver to destroy American and drag your kids to Hell. Neither actually share the suspicion of government that caused the forefathers to write the Constitution. Constitutional rights are seen as either technicalities or outdated relics, or both. Today, the Bill of Rights wouldn't have a chance in hell of passing.

    29. Re:Funny.. by syousef · · Score: 1

      Good little troll. Now go back and re-read the second definition. Use a dictionary if you must.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    30. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex offenders don't get rehabilitated

      This is especially true when the sex offender is innocent.

    31. Re:Funny.. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a lack of proper education in schools. People aren't being taught to think critically, or even "think." Even the most basic logic is hopelessly beyond the grasp of most people, and anyone who even slightly questions The Truth (whatever it is) is hunted down and lynched by a drooling, raging mob of idiots. These people have never even thought about why they're so hysterically hell-bent on protecting The Truth, because that would mean that they're questioning The Truth, which is self-evident.

      Don't think for a second that the average Slashdot user is any different. Being a geek doesn't make you very intelligent.

    32. Re:Funny.. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1
      This might seem like an especially radical thing to say, but being raped is NOT the end of the world. It is completely possible to recover from being raped or molested and go on to live a happy life. However being murdered IS, by defintion, the end of (your) world.

      I'd rather be murdered. No doubt about it.
    33. Re:Funny.. by MaxInBxl · · Score: 1

      If the sex-offender related laws get broadened and things such as what is described in this article become more common-place then eventually a majority of US citizens will be labelled sex-offenders. THEN, some politicians will think about reviewing these laws. Well... unless sex-offenders are not allowed to vote (is that the case?)

    34. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'll remember that the next time we meet, kiddo.

    35. Re:Funny.. by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      Funny, but noboby gets labeled a "murderer" for life. Murderers are released from prison every day. In fact, hundreds of them. They serve their sentence and move on. No reporting themselves to their neighbors. No exclusion zones. No "registered murderer" lists.

      One reason (and I don't claim this is the only one) for the difference is recidivism rates (i.e. chance to repeat the crime). Recidivism rates for sex offenders are among the highest. Recidivism rates for murder are significantly lower.

      I'm not justifying the whole 'registered sex offender' approach based on this data, mind you. Just mentioning it, as one of the main reasons for it.

    36. Re:Funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have thought about this labeling many times and it makes me angry. Someday when I have money I want to be that guy who stands up and says something that gets him hated by everyone, but at least gets the dialog going about changing these laws that are snowballing out of control. The whole marytr for a cause really scares people off, noone wants to be labeled as evil for the sake of good. I guess I can't blame them - I would only attempt saying public things that drew hatred if I had enough money to withstand the legal and shunning (jobs, housing) barrage that would follow.

    37. Re:Funny.. by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1
      Recidivism rates in sexual offenders are through the roof.

      No, they are not: "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders." (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics)

      Sex offenders are, however, four times more likely than non-sex offenders to commit another sex crime. Ready for the number? Drum roll, please ... 5.3 percent! Through the roof? Pfft.

      A more detailed BJS breakdown indicates that people jailed for property crimes are the most likely to reoffend. So, how come the government isn't telling me which of my neighbors I shouldn't loan a cup of flour to?

    38. Re:Funny.. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      What kind of a fucking assclown modded this shit +1 Insightful?

    39. Re:Funny.. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      This might seem like an especially radical thing to say, but being raped is NOT the end of the world. It is completely possible to recover from being raped or molested and go on to live a happy life. However being murdered IS, by defintion, the end of (your) world.

      The dead don't complain as much as the living do.

    40. Re:Funny.. by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      > One reason (and I don't claim this is the only one) for the difference is recidivism rates (i.e. chance to repeat the crime). Recidivism rates for sex offenders are among the highest. Recidivism rates for murder are significantly lower.

      You are absolutely wrong. According to this post the Department of Justice says you're mistaken, and this is the government agency tasked with keeping crime statistics. What say you now?

      Virg

    41. Re:Funny.. by kripkenstein · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely wrong. According to this post the Department of Justice says you're mistaken, and this is the government agency tasked with keeping crime statistics. What say you now?

      I say that there is more than one way to measure recidivism. For example, a study in Arizona found that 70% of sex offenders eventually return to prison for a new sex crime, looking at a 15 year period. The study you quoted looks at a 3 year period. I'm not saying one of the studies is right and the other is wrong - in fact they may both be right.

      But it is not easy to make the comparisons we would like to make. For example, I would like to compare recidivism rates for sex offenders and murderers. But murderers serve very long sentences, so they are significantly older when released (if they are released at all), which may mean that their chances to commit another murder is lower just for that reason (older people commit less crimes, statistically). On the other hand there are plenty of people released when they are young for e.g. theft, and their recidivism rates may be higher than rates for sex offenders. But I am not sure that is the right thing to compare. In other words, there is data, and there is interpretation, and plenty of room to argue.

    42. Re:Funny.. by virg_mattes · · Score: 1
      > For example, a study in Arizona found that 70% of sex offenders eventually return to prison for a new sex crime, looking at a 15 year period. The study you quoted looks at a 3 year period.

      This is the problem I have with your statement. You state that there's data and there's interpretation, but the study I pointed out shows that you're wrong, and the study you point out has no statistical "control" set. Where's the study for non-sex offenders that return to prison for non-sex crimes over a fifteen year period? Since there's nothing to place it against, your statement is pure speculation, and the danger is that people will believe you when you're just inventing. More importantly, that part that you don't cover is that even your statistic itself comes from a subset of the sex offenders covered (the 51.4 percent released into parole supervision). The telling number that compares to the study I cited is this:
      Among the 3,205 released sex offenders, 25.2% returned to prison in Arizona at least once within an average follow-up period of 6.85 years.

      That's the proper statistic in the Arizona report to compare at all to what I cited, and it meshes pretty well with the numbers on the USDOJ report.

      In short, stop saying that sex crime recidivism is higher than other crime until you have some real reason to say so. Since my study says you're wrong and your study doesn't cover non-sex crimes you have no basis to say what you did. There is data and there is interpretation, but there's not very much room to argue unless you're willing to "interpret" to your choice of end, or just make it up wholesale.

      Virg
  24. I've seen similar ~3 years ago by gerf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At my old University, they required everyone to buy a computer through them. So, every numb-nuts had a computer hooked up to the network. There was no default AV or firewall installed, or even Auto-updates, as this was early WinXP days (and Win2k and 98 the years before that).

    Well, he of course got infected with ungodly amounts of crap. I ran Adaware on it once, and it came up with 500-600 pieces of garbage, with approximately 50 - 60 of those being actual installed software. As the school had on-campus service, I just told him to bring it to them, and they'd reinstall all the school software for him.

    So, he brought it in, and they found "child pornography" on it. Now, this was absolute news to him, and everyone else. As this was at my old Fraternity house (owned by the school, network owned by the school, was run similarly to other school-owned residencies), they threatened everyone at the house, and God knows what else. Eventually they looked around the house, and to their surprise, did not find a projector and child porn laying around. Apparantly this is what they thought they were housing a child porn theater of some sort. Amazingly, they dropped the case right there, and were very nice about it all, considering what was involved.

    As for the original poster, was it this student's fault anyway? He was forced to use this computer, was given inadequate software with no training, and was only using the services given to him. I realize he got away cleanly, with no lawyers involved, but can we really expect this to not be a problem? Many in law enforcement do not understand what's involved in these cases, nor do many in the field of law (though this is getting better as the younger generations are entering these fields.)

    1. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by 49152 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your friend was extremly lucky

    2. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Skater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's one point about these arguments I don't understand...

      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.

      I can see porn sites writing malware that provides porn popups (advertisements for their sites), but those (to me) aren't "images" as much as "software". I'm sure they aren't downloading a free gig of porn to the victim's computer - they wouldn't be making money that way!

      The way some of these stories and comments are written, it sounds like someone examining the computer found dozens of pictures of kiddie porn on there, and the explanation is "the virus did it!"...but I don't see the motive in writing a virus to do that...a popup or two, yes, but not dozens of images.

      What am I missing here? Are people just finding malware that's popping up ads, but phrasing it poorly?

    3. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by krakelohm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am thinking that they are setup as IRC fserves, black ftp sites and such.

      --
      You are all a bunch of idots.
    4. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Nasarius · · Score: 1
      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.
      The story mentions trojans. It seems likely that the kid's computer was being used as a proxy for downloading it.
      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    5. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.

      i would imagine a parallel to a P2P network. spread it out among unrelated systems, makes it that much harder to track down the actual servers, or maybe eliminate the actual servers and work it on a completely distributed network.

      i imagine it would make it very difficult to track down the scum that make the stuff and makes it difficult to track down the downloaders as there would be a huge number of false positives.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's one point about these arguments I don't understand...

      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers?


            It all becomes clear once you restate the question. How can we take a sucker for everything he's got?

            The overlap of child porn types with those who write malicious internet software must be small indeed. So first of all, we're not talking child porn types. It's clear from news on busts that they do have clubs, and they do trade pictures, and some busts have been big, but we're talking Yahoo reject groups here, nothing more sophisticated than emailing or FTP'ing zip files to each other (where you have to contribute pictures to join the group).

            We are talking instead people running malicious software, and it's the usual culprits. The same ones running bot nets to steal everything you have and own you if they can. Since child porn is pretty close to the most universally banned thing on earth, you can't store it on a server and lure people to it. So that's why it would be stored on innocent people's PC's that are owned.

            And I suspect that once they get a credit card number from someone to buy child porn, that guy can pretty much kiss it good bye. What's he gonna do, report his child porn dealer to the police for maxing out his card?

            So just a different angle on the usual from our friends on the internet who spend night and day posting about all the "free" stuff they have for you.

        rd

    7. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Animedude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you were dealing with illegal pictures, would you store them on your own computer? The video linked to in the article mentions child pornographers storing their data on other computers than their own, so maybe they use some kind of p2p network where "zombie" machines store the pictures/videos. That way, if police find out where the pictures come from, the child pornographers would not be at risk themselves.

    8. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      What about the scenario of a computer that gets hijacked and becomes a zombie repository for a trading network?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    9. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by AlbionTourgee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another horrifying case is that of Julian Green, who was wrongly accused after a trojan left child porn pictures on his computer -- he did get off due to some good forensic work, but only after spending 9 months in jail. Green a single father, almost lost custody of his daughter. The police just didn't entertain the idea that his computer had been hijacked as a child porn transfer point, but it can happen. A good reason for using a strong anti-spyware program...

    10. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.

      If I had a thing for illegal stuff like that, I'd certainly use someone else's equipment for hosting and storage. If I spread it around enough, then the simple presence of CP on my computer wouldn't be enough to convict me of anything.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    11. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by turtlexit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I visited and read the entire story as posted on the justice4matt.com site, and a couple of questions emerged in my mind. Please note that I'm not saying that this kid was guility, or even supporting the continuance of this case by Maricopa County.

      He confirmed that, in fact, there were child pornography images, one of which had been uploaded to Yahoo by someone with the username "mrbob1980hoopdu." This was not the name Matt used, which was joebean1988hoopdu (hoopdu was the name of an online game Matt and his friends liked to play). But there was still, mysteriously, evidence that "mrbob1980hoopdu" had sent the image from The Bandy's IP address. Additionally, it seemed that the illegal activity had coincided, roughly, with the times Matt had been active on Yahoo as joebean1988hoopdu. And, one or more images were also found on a CD-ROM.

      Obviously the investigators noticed the similarity between these two usernames. How is this explained; are we to assume that the 'hacker' retrieved Matt's own Yahoo screen name, and registered one extremely similar to throw off investigators? This just seems odd to me.

      Secondly, while it's obviously possible for a hacker accessing your computer remotely to do anything they'd like to with your system, WHY would this particular pedophile hacker decide to burn several child porn images to a CD-R or CD-RW that just so happened to be in the drive? As the justice4matt.com site argues, this is perfectly possible - and yet doesn't make any sense in my mind.

    12. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by boarsai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It makes me wonder... if you know you visit a site and it pops up some ungodly advert like some filesharing and torrent sites do these days that image makes its way into your cache. Supposing you were to hand you box into someone who then "uncovers" this travesty of an image... would they use such a cached image to convict you? o_0

    13. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by A_Lost_Frenchman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.

      Knowing a thing or two about networks, I would say that protecting yourself could be a strong incentive to install child porn on someone else's computer.

      Imagine you were somehow distributing child porn. Would you give your ip or the adresse of your website to your "customers" ?

      I don't think so. You would probably try not to have any child porn on your pc, given the rotten and dangerous nature of what you are doing. You would probably try to do something like installing the stuff on some oblivious guy's pc and give HIS adress to download the files.

      In my opinion the investigators (if any) fell for it and didn't realize that if the guy had child porn on his pc, that's not because he is a pervert, be because the real pervert is skilled with computers and uses zombies to hide his trail.

      It's a long shot but I think it's at least a possibility.

    14. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by 49152 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have also read the story.

      It is also perfectly possible that the images the teenage boy had on his computer was of someone approximately the same age or even older than himself. Child pornography is defined as sexualized pictures of anyone below the age of 18. In fact it would be illegal if this child distributed nude pictures of himself, something that should give you a hint about the rationality of charging minors with child pornography offenses at all.

      Even if the pictures was of children much younger than him, the whole idea of trying to convict him to 90 years in prison is just ludicrous. Any competent psychiatrist can tell you it is perfectly normal for children to be curious about all aspects of human sexuality, even those that falls outside the accepted norm. He *might* need some counseling, but certainly not prison.

      In the USA children are children until they commit a crime, then they have proven them self to be adult and will be treated as such.

      "Would someone please think of the children", yeah right /sarcasm

    15. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by SuluSulu · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they are just having "fun" by putting child porn on peoples computers. They are evil after all.

    16. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's one point about these arguments I don't understand...

      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.


      Umm, maybe to distribute it without getting caught? Not everything is about money, you know. Back in the day, the first of the 10 commanments of phreaking was:

                    BOX THOU NOT OVER THINE HOME
                    TELEPHONE WIRES, FOR THOSE WHO
                    DOEST MUST SURELY BRING THE
                    WRATH OF THE CHIEF SPECIAL
                    AGENT DOWN UPON THY HEADS.

      "Box[ing]" refers to using a device called a colored "box" (eg. redbox, bluebox, etc) to trick the phone system into (usually) giving you free phone service, which is clearly an illegal activity. As with any illegal activity using public communication lines, it is not wise to use a connection that can be traced back to the perp. In the case of child porn distribution, the trojans can be used as an untraceable way to store and distribute the illegal content. Your grandma's computer could be a hub for kiddie porn without her even knowing it!

      I can see porn sites writing malware that provides porn popups (advertisements for their sites), but those (to me) aren't "images" as much as "software". I'm sure they aren't downloading a free gig of porn to the victim's computer - they wouldn't be making money that way!

      Again, it's not always about money.

      The way some of these stories and comments are written, it sounds like someone examining the computer found dozens of pictures of kiddie porn on there, and the explanation is "the virus did it!"...but I don't see the motive in writing a virus to do that...a popup or two, yes, but not dozens of images.

      Most people who aren't computer literate will not realize that 30GB of their shiny new 500GB hard drive is missing. That's plenty of space to set up a clandestine IRC fserv for pedophiles. The default configuration in Windows XP doesn't even have an indicator to display network activity, so the unsuspecting users wouldn't have a clue what was going on behind the pretty wallpaper.

    17. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by qzulla · · Score: 1

      Why did they look at it?

      My system seems hosed.
      Ok.
      [reimage]
      Here ya go.

      qz

    18. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by mollymoo · · Score: 1
      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.

      Reasonable doubt. The existance of software which downloads illegal material to your computer without your knowlegde is an excellent excuse for having illegal material on your computer. In other words, it makes the computers of child porn types hard to distinguish from the computers of non-child porn types.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    19. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by qzulla · · Score: 1

      Note to self: don't leave blank writable CDs in drive. Yeah, I noticed this to. qz

    20. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by FoXDie · · Score: 1

      What's the motive for any computer virus that some nutjob throws out there?

    21. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by spungebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure it's possible to burn a CD with those images, and not just because some mysterious pedophile hacker is doing it remotely or via malicious code.

      Ever burn an mp3 disc by simply dropping and dragging folders? Did you check each and every folder to make sure that there were only your expected mp3's stored there?

      Ever burned a backup disc? Again, did you copy that 600+ MB's of data over one file at a time or did you just drag bunches of folders over?

      If the kid's hard drive was compromised and there were images on there that he didn't know about, it's reasonable to suggest that some of those images may have unknowingly been burned to disc. One would have to know a lot more of the specific circumstances surrounding that disc before passing judgement.

      Now if someone had written "Kiddie Pr0n" on the CD using a Sharpie, then circumstance might be a bit more obvious...

      --
      It takes an idiot to do cool things - that's why it's cool!
    22. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by modecx · · Score: 1

      I can attest to this. A few years ago my grandmother's computer got virused up, I'm not really sure of the attack vector, but it was probably worm related. Anyway, it was part of some IRC network and it had a ton of crap that, quite obviously, nobody else using the computer would have a clue about. It was pretty freaky.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    23. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by silkenphoenixx · · Score: 1

      Surely, though, the proper solution wouldn't be to ruin the kid's life (heck, everyone does stupid things when they're 16) and put him in jail and mark him as a sex offender when it's obvious that things went much further than what he intended them to.

      I think that the solution should be to crack down on the child porn websites and writers of this malware and stuff, sending their victims (even if not entirely innocent) to prison is just silly.

      It's sad that a great piece of technology like a computer can be used in such a harmful way, causing people to fear them. We can laugh and make "there be dragons" jokes, but in the end we have people that don't want computers because they bring porn to the children. The real criminals here are those that ruin other people's lives, posessions, relationships etc. to cover their own evil deeds and satisfy their own greed, lust, whatever.

    24. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by modecx · · Score: 1

      True... but child pron types also tend to love to have other kinds of physical materials related to their twisted tastes. Their computers may look similar, but their lives, their habits, their tastes, their personalities, everything else about them will likely tell the truth.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    25. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're looking too far into this. The goal and effect of irrational sexual legislation is to promote hysteria, and instill a sense of guilt into young people. The religious nuts can't burn us anymore (legally), so they use the legal system to promote their sick, twisted views of humanity. It is the same reason they abhor sexual education in schools - they would rather teenagers die of STDs than fuck outside of marriage.

      I wish I was joking.
      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    26. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by AriaStar · · Score: 1

      Host is on someone else's computer and you can escape being busted. Sure, these nine photos are down now, but an innocent kid took the rap for it. That is what criminals accomplish by going through other computers. They avoid detection and someone else falls. But what's really being overlooked is how this kid and his attorney ultimately had to prove him innocent. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    27. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Additionally, it seemed that the illegal activity had coincided, roughly, with the times Matt had been active on Yahoo as joebean1988hoopdu.

      I'm puzzled about something here. According to this there were two users logged into Yahoo! on the same computer at the same tyme. Yet neither I nor anyone else I know has been able to do this, I am a member of some Yahoo groups and I know of members of some of the groups that have two or more Yahoo IDs. The only way they can login with more than one ID at the same tyme is if they use different computers for each ID.

      WHY would this particular pedophile hacker decide to burn several child porn images to a CD-R or CD-RW that just so happened to be in the drive? As the justice4matt.com site argues, this is perfectly possible - and yet doesn't make any sense in my mind.

      Doing so solidifies the case against the victim. If there is a solid case there's no need to look more.

      Falcon
    28. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by 49152 · · Score: 1

      I also wish you were joking.

      Unfortunately, I think you may be correct.

    29. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by 49152 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely. This kind of stupidity solves nothing, but threatens to destroy many innocent lives.

    30. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm puzzled about something here. According to this there were two users logged into Yahoo! on the same computer at the same tyme. Yet neither I nor anyone else I know has been able to do this, I am a member of some Yahoo groups and I know of members of some of the groups that have two or more Yahoo IDs. The only way they can login with more than one ID at the same tyme is if they use different computers for each ID.

      This is almost certain to be done by using cookies, not by checking the IP address. Checking the IP address would mean that when one people logged onto Yahoo at work, noone else could. Most work places (and even some ISPs) have people behind a NAT or Proxy, making everyone come from the same IP address.

      Having two different users logged in on the same machine gives two different sets of cookies, allowing them to surf just as if they were on separate machines.

      Heck, even using a different web browser would be enough. E.g. Internet Explorer and a remote controlled, command line driven bulk upload tool.

    31. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's something I really don't get. It contradicts itself.

      Q: Why do we protect children from sexual predators?
      A: Because children are deemed unable to make a conscious and consenting sexual decision.

      Q: If anything sexual a child decides to do or not to do is unconscious or nonconsenting, how can it ever commit a sexual crime?
      A: Because we say if it does it anyway, it must be a criminal.

      (We have currently a case in Germany where an at the time probably 11 year old girl took sexual photographs of itself and sent them to someone per email. In the U.S. probably the girl now would face charges for producing and distributing child porn).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    32. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm puzzled about something here. According to this there were two users logged into Yahoo! on the same computer at the same tyme. Yet neither I nor anyone else I know has been able to do this,
      Run two different browsers (Firefox and Opera for example) and you're done. It's not a very mighty hack.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    33. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by WeeBit · · Score: 1

      Three years ago or so... A person was not so lucky. They had child porn and about the same amount of spyware etc as you mentioned. They was convicted by a judge that had no idea how a computer works, and by a police department that had no idea on how to check for signs of a computer not protected. They gave the guy 8 to 10 years. The article is no longer online. They convicted this guy just because it was on his computer. No other porn was in the home, no pics, no cds of the stuff.

      It seems to me if they are going to go after the so called bad people. They should at least have some type of knowledge on how a computer works, and all police departments should have a team that knows how to tell if a person's computer is infected, or are they actually guilty. If not, then send the tower to someone that knows what they are doing. This is scary stuff. It makes me wonder if one day we will have a bunch of law enforcement convicting people right and left like they did back on those so called bad daycare days that weren't.

    34. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by WeeBit · · Score: 1

      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? They do this for storage, and to keep their computers clean. I believe. Maybe they have other reasons too.
    35. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or not using MS products

    36. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Child pornography is defined as sexualized pictures of anyone below the age of 18.

      Even more stupidly, the age of consent in some states is 16. So if I have a 16 year old girlfriend (I don't), I can see her naked body, I can have sex with her, but as soon as I take and keep pictures, I'm a sex offender? If I take pictures and give them to her, I'm not only a child pornographer, but I am distributing pornography to a minor. I'm a felon! That does not make sense.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    37. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's one point about these arguments I don't understand..."

      Others have addressed other aspects better than I, but in addition, do not discount:

      -- anti-porn types purposefully setting up evidence to continue their crusade

      -- people who set up sites for profitand to minimize their illegal exposure, as they may not like the porn but see it as an opportunity to make money (this should not be at all surprising)

      -- individuals who do stuff because they can or to shock people

      -- the expansive definition of child porn that is rarely given in the article or discussion; some do not consider a 17yo picture child porn, but the law does

    38. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by notbob · · Score: 1

      i definately have to agree that it is retarded how our laws our written especially when free speech is taken into account

      So the government tells you that you have freedom of speech and freedom of press, so lets use your example and test these "rights" they supposedly can't take a way:
      * Can you take pictures of your hypothetical 16 yr old gf in a state where it is legal by age of consent and post them freely in a publication? No, that as previously stated would be distributing child pornography, but what happened to freedom of the speech / press?

      This doesn't make much sense, our legal system really does need a cleaning of house (and i don't mean by some bitch running the sweeper in the house of representatives). Our laws started very simple with basic rights and moved into retardedness from there.

      If a child is defined as under 18 then how do you convict a child of an adult crime with adult punishments? By doing so you're violating the first law that they're a minor.

      If I'm gauranteed freedom of the press why can't I publish a paper called "Fuck niggers and ya know what hitler was right about dem jews", legally I cannot publish such "obscenities".

      Why is it in a free country I can't freely choose who I sell my own house to? I can't decline selling it to a black person but a 55+ retirement community can refuse to sell to me based on age. How is age descrimination against the young legal but not against the old? How is descrimination of 1 kind legal and yet another is not?

      As much as I love the ideals our country claims, I think we've truly forgotten what the creators of this country had envisioned, we've become worse then what our fore fathers hoped to escape in england. We need a new slogan "America home of the Hypocracy"

    39. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's completely crazy that having any kind of data on your machine could ever be a crime.

      I completely agree that anybody that hurts children (and producing child porn definitely falls under that category) should be hunted down and punished severely, but possession should never be criminal. I really wonder how long it will be before having a copy of "Lolita" (the book) on your HD becomes a punishable offense.

    40. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      It exists, in theory. In practice you have to actively defend yourself. I got mixed up in something and in over my head once. It went as far as the grand jury. Had I remained silent (as is my right) I would have been indicted. Had I remained silent at trial I probably would have been convicted.

      "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't work if you (the defendant) don't provide the reasonable doubt. If two people say that they saw you blow away the cashier and you don't point out that you were somewhere else at the time it happened then get ready to meet Bubba...

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    41. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by januth · · Score: 1

      Now it seems that all anyone can think of is the children. Even innocent seeming conduct can easily be misconstrued as "endangering" a child. There's an interesting article on salon.com entitled "They called me a child pornographer" that details one family's excursion into a similar legal hellhole as a result of photos taken during a camping trip.

      From the article: As usual during the trip, we took several photos. Because I forgot my digital camera, I bought a disposable camera at a gas station on the way to the campground. I took pictures of the kids using sticks to beat on old bottles and cans and logs as musical instruments. I took a few of my youngest daughter, Eliza, then age 3, skinny dipping in the lake, and my son, Noah, then age 8, swimming in the lake in his underwear, and another of Noah naked, hamming it up while using a long stick to hold his underwear over the fire to dry. Finally, I took a photo of everyone, as was our camping tradition, peeing on the ashes of the fire to put it out for the last time. We also let the kids take photos of their own. When we returned on Sunday, I forgot the throwaway camera and Rusty found it in his car. He gave it to his wife, who I'll call Janet, to get developed, and she dropped it off the next day with two other rolls of film at a local Eckerd drug store. On Tuesday, when she returned to pick up the film, she was approached by two officers from the Savannah Police Department. They told her they had been called by Eckerd due to "questionable photos."

      This, of course, was just the beginning of an overblown investigation. Like this case, Matt Bandy's "crime" should have been looked at by a competent prosecutor and dropped. However, other recent cases in the news (the Connecticut porn-pop-up teacher, and the Duke Lacrosse "rape") show that unfortunately some prosecutors are simply out to make a name for themselves rather than checking their facts or enforcing the spirit of the law.

      There's no question that crimes against children are a vile thing, but after decades of doing nothing and pretending that such things just didn't happen we are now - in typical American fashion - going to exactly the opposite extreme.

    42. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you saying that child porn is really OK and the only reason it's illegal is to "promote hysteria, and instill a sense of guilt into young people." ? Anti-child-porn laws are "irrational sexual legislation?" That is what this article is about - child porn and the consequences of having it on your computer. No-one is legislating anything against your adult porn.

      The religious right wants to control your sexuality and the porn industry wants to make money from it. Neither give a shit what their actions do to you, it's all about power and money for them. The legal system won't stop the porn industry (even though prostitution is supposedly illegal in most places in the US) but it does try to stop child porn.

      In this case that kid was porn surfing and very well might have been looking at child porn. Who knows? At the least, he went to porn sites that got his family's computer hacked.

    43. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      The abc story talked about that. The people that actual have that kind of restricted material hack into several computers and use them as a network drive to store the images so that there is no incriminating information on their own computers. I am thinking that with this setup, if they want to share the images with a like minded friend, they just have to give them the IP, password, and which trojan is on the machine. Instant P2P without the electron trail.

    44. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by name*censored* · · Score: 1
      If you were dealing with illegal pictures, would you store them on your own computer?
      If I were some sort of low life scum (rephrase: if I were a CHILD PORN VIEWING low life scum and not just regular-low life scum) I sure would. It'd mean offline access, and I'd just fein computer ignorance/to be an "innocent" (as in, pretend to be like the people this article is about). If they catch you connected to an innocent's computer and come and find that you QUITE OBVIOUSLY have the computer know-how to keep yourself clean, then the "I'm an innocent" defence would fall to crap. Just install a few trojans, XP, IE, OE and a bunch of trojans and bob's your uncle, you're just a link in the chain and not the anchor. It's harder to find a piece of hay in a stack of hay than it is to find a needle.
      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    45. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by name*censored* · · Score: 3, Funny
      Just install a few trojans, XP, IE, OE and a bunch of trojans
      oops, ignore that there's two sets of trojan-installing going on.
      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    46. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by ssstraub · · Score: 1

      Welcome to my friends list!

    47. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.

      If one were the malicious hacker type, I can't see anything worse you can do to someone than putting child porn on their computer in order to get them thrown in Federal prison.

      If this could be automated on a larger scale, then think of all the destruction you could cause with so many lives.

      Or you could just target one person and threaten blackmail.

      I'm surprised that Eastern Europe groups or the Russian mafia haven't picked up on such techniques.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    48. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      One possible motivation would be to use it as a cover. If they managed to actually drop illegal images on large numbers of machines, it would become very hard to prosecute anyone for possession.

      Maybe once they had distributed the files sufficiently they'd alert the authorities and let them start work on the innocent. Once a few high-profile cases collapse (maybe you'd pick a 16 year-old child to increase media attention) you'd have a plausible defence - evil hackers put it there. Very wild speculation, I admit.

    49. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You know, I've heard about these stories for years. There was a teacher (I read about in Playboy, of all places) a few years back in Ohio or somewhere that ended up being labeled a sex offender and losing his gig. He was looking at porn on the job, got caught and then in his stash of pics and videos (on a home computer) there happened to be a 15 year old girl. The article spun is like he didn't even know and he probably didn't. The Man came down hard, he ended up plea-bargaining to avoid prison but he'll never teach again. I don't recall the details but it sounded like he didn't have the money to mount a proper defense (he was being sued to avoid a pension or something,) because of that the prosecution somehow got his home computers and then it all just spiraled out of control from there and went from a civil to criminal trial. At the same time 90year old ladies and 8 year old kids were being issued threats from the RIAA.


      Basically they were bashing the patriot act, home land security and the fact that there are so many laws that if they want to get you, they'll always have something to get you with and when they do come for you they'll have you on 15 different crimes. I don't know how much of it is yellow journalism and how much of it is true. They further show how the rates of prosecution have gone done over the last 100 years but the conviction rates have gone up; which is good, we want efficiency but the number of out of court case closures is way higher than ever before. The picture is basically, you get caught doing something minor, you get a red ass DA who wants to lock you up, he charges you with 20 crimes and you barely have the means to properly defend yourself against one, so instead of letting justice happen, you end up taking a plea because it's the path of least resistance. That the text book libertarian view of the current US judicial system. Mix in some Chomsky and you might think it was orchestrated to let OJ go loose, even though he is in the minority, because it increases government power by making the masses think a bunch of guilty people are beating the system all the time. There are also a lot of people that for some reason believe Bush will "take power" and stay in office after 2008. And an incredibly large number of folks actually believe that Bush and the US government planned 9/11, all on very very flimsy "evidence." Basically, it's easy to believe what you want anymore. It's a lot easier to surround yourself with "media" that you trust.


      Seems to me, you have to do something wrong in the first place for all this stuff to work. Same thing happened to Randy Weaver, he was trafficking illegal weapons, got busted, decided he didn't want to deal with the legal system so they came and got him (albeit a little heavy handed but you don't have a lot of choice in the matter once it comes to that) and his family ended up dead. It really kind of puzzles me how the man starts to focus on a 16 year old sneaking a look at porn, unless there is something else there. Being 16, it's entirely possible that his parents stepped in and took actions to keep him from prison and you'll never hear the whole story since he's a minor. It's totally possible he's the victim of some terrible right-wing tyranny but I kind of think he was probably doing something wrong in the first place and that's the risk you take in this day. It comes down to if you think the elected officials and the people they appoint in to our bureaucracy are stupid or if they are really fucking evil because there is a really big difference. I simply cannot see it ever getting that far unless the kid was really doing something wrong or somehow not dealing with it correctly (like lying and then pretending to not know anything about computers or something)


      Once you start breaking laws, trading music, whatever, you open the door. Take a long hard look at what you do and how much of it is illegal. Do you own the software you are running? For real? Do you have a bunch of porn on your drive? How legal is that? Are you sure everyone is over 18? The risk is low, really low but the punishment is great. That's just the state of things. What's the picture worth to you? Being labeled a sex offender?

    50. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by luwain · · Score: 1

      It seems that the "authorities" are ignorant of the nature of the internet these days. Without a decent firewall and up-to-date virus protection a computer connected to the internet by a broadband connection will be infected within minutes. Porn sites store a lot of the material on unsuspecting, unprotected servers. I worked for company once and a developer working for me complained that a few hours after installing Oracle on a newly installed server, she had no disk space left. I investigated and found that the company had no firewall protecting it's network connected to the internet !!! The server in question had 25 gigabytes of porn filling up the database. I freaked out, but the management didn't seem to think it was such a big deal that they hadn't thought of protecting their network !! I think that distributors of porn have some sort of "bots" that search the net for unprotected storage to store their wares. The people whose computers are invaded in this way are victims, not criminals. The authorities are too stupid and ignorant to catch the real bad guys. How can pop-up ads on a computer be used to convict somebody of a sex crime?? Pop-up Ads are installed by a third party, involuntarily, and in any case, it only takes one accidental visit to a porn site to get "infected" with pop-ups that are difficult to "clean".

    51. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by grumble_au · · Score: 1

      What the hell is an 11 year old doing taking "sexual photographs" of herself? This is not something a normal child should be doing. It sounds like the sort of thing a pervert might ask a child to do, not something they would do spontaneously

    52. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by LPrecure · · Score: 1

      Don't know about actual child porn, but there is a ton of malware out there that spreads through various P2P networks by creating files on the target computer that have names like "Hot Naked Teens" (which actually are executables containing the malware), and then sharing the file.

      In addition, it occurs to me that if I were a kiddie porn trader, it would really be to my advantage to have some innocent sucker "host" my porn.

    53. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      My (non-lawyer) understanding, which is probably incomplete and possibly flat out wrong (maybe someone more knowledgeable cares to chime in) is this:

      First, if you live in a state where the age of consent is below 18, taking pictures of you minor girlfriend would probably land you into hot water. However, part of the Miller test when defining obscenity includes this phrase, "Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law." Which could mean that if what you're taking pictures of is legal then the pictures are legal. Of course it is a whole different game if you show or distribute the pictures to anyone else.

      When it comes to charging children as adults I think the whole concept is just crazy, and wreaks of slippery slope to me. I think I'd be ok with DA's having the discretion to charge a 16-17 yr old as an adult, if they were required to provide expert testimony indicating that the person is psychologically an adult, but every time I hear about wanting to charge an 8 year old as an adult I cringe - they are supposed to be protected as minors for a reason!

      In the US obscenity refers exclusively to sexual material, so you could publish any distasteful print material or music (with the possible exception of graphic descriptions of sexual child abuse), non-sexual images or video you want and it would not be illegal, and not be obscene.

      Now, as to selling your house - in my opinion - you, as the seller, should not be allowed to discriminate based on anything. This country has had its share of race problems, and I'd prefer if something is up for sale then it should be sold to whomever is willing to pay for it, including young whippersnappers who want the easy living offered by a retirement community. After all why do you care who the next owner of your home is? On the flip side, If you are renting a room to someone, you can discriminate based on anything you feel like. if you have to live with the person, and you are the landlord, it is up to you to make the decision. This is also one of the things that cuts both ways, it might be profitable to set up a store that caters only to minor ethnic groups - do you want to be excluded from those establishments?

    54. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Malakusen · · Score: 1
      Obviously the investigators noticed the similarity between these two usernames. How is this explained; are we to assume that the 'hacker' retrieved Matt's own Yahoo screen name, and registered one extremely similar to throw off investigators? This just seems odd to me.

      You can search Yahoo for usernames that are in a given location and meet given criteria, such as gender and age and whatnot. Once you find somebody who meets the criteria you give, it's a simple matter to create a similar UID. It'd take maybe 5 minutes, and it would be free, and it would give you an additional layer of confusion, camoflage, and obfuscation to keep the cops from finding you and to put more blame on the patsy.

      Not too unlikely.
      --
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
    55. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Sique · · Score: 1

      That's in fact the story behind it. She said that someone contacted her while she was online and asked for the pictures. And that he never contacted her again after she sent them.

      But I remember that I walked home from school when I was about 13 years old and a small crowd of four to five girls was walking behind me and, calling me, flashing, and demanding to have sex with them. They were between 9 and 12 years old. I knew what classes they were in, so the age was easily to determine. (No, I didn't turn to them.) So I guess for girls that age to have a rudimentary understanding of sexuality is quite normal. I myself had at age 12 a pretty good vocabulary of sexual terms, I knew the position of the G-spot, and I was able to tell the difference between a cunnilingus and anal perforation, though only theoretically.

      So I can't rule out that a person of age 11 or 12 suddenly gets the idea of taking nude picture of herself.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    56. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by kabocox · · Score: 1

      The way some of these stories and comments are written, it sounds like someone examining the computer found dozens of pictures of kiddie porn on there, and the explanation is "the virus did it!"...but I don't see the motive in writing a virus to do that...a popup or two, yes, but not dozens of images.

      One ad pop up could be dozens of different images. What if they have n number of free new pics each day and stream that to their ad pop ups? How often do most people even think of dumping their cache?

    57. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Oh come on.

      Me and my girlfriend took pictures of each other with bloody polaroid cameras back in the 1970's when we were below 18 years old. You are expecting kids today with web camera's and inexpensive digital cameras to not take pictures of themselves disrobed?

      Naive, party of one.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    58. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by kabocox · · Score: 1

      In the USA children are children until they commit a crime, then they have proven them self to be adult and will be treated as such.

      We will solve this crap by lowering the minor age down to 13. Anyone young than 13 it'll be illegal to smoke, drink can't vote, can't drive, and can't legally have sex. Once you hit 13 and become a full citizen, you are allowed to smoke, drink, drive, and have sex. The only one of those activities that should be licensed by the government is driving.

    59. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you never a kid? I played doctor, took crotch pictures with a polaroid, swapped stolen porn magazines, etc. before the age of 11.

    60. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was working for a "major notebook manufacturer", the adaware record was something like 23000 objects. 500-600 is nothing :)

    61. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by MasterPoof · · Score: 1

      Extremely lucky is a better word for it. With the rampant stupidity that runs loose in many of these campus IT staff, he's very lucky they didn't push the matter; if that had gone any farther (like pressing possible charges) it would be very difficult to stop, even if he was innocent.

      --
      Using GNU/Linux -- Windows-free zone!
    62. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Or not limiting the police recruitment pool to people with sub-120 IQs.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    63. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Prosecutors are both lawyers and politicians. Destroying lives to advance their career is something that doesn't keep them awake at night.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    64. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I recall a case I watched on TV, pre-Internet, where they had a secret film of a guy taking the child pr0n out of his mail box, then they swooped in and arrested him on posession of it. They had suspected he was a child pr0n loving bad guy, and just mailed him the stuff out of the blue, and swooped in before he could even open it.

      Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    65. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      No, but is treating some horny 23 year old to a 20 year sentence because he had a photo of an anonymous 17 year old naked in a deleted cache area amongst thousands of others of of-age women, as if he was a violent raper of four year olds legitimately considered overreaching?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    66. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by kchrist · · Score: 1
      If I'm gauranteed freedom of the press why can't I publish a paper called "Fuck niggers and ya know what hitler was right about dem jews", legally I cannot publish such "obscenities".

      Sure you can, at least in the US, which is what we're talking about. Granted, you may have trouble finding a publisher and distributor, but you are certainly legally free to publish if you can get around the practical problems of this sort of thing. See The Turner Diaries , for example.

    67. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you should have reported them so a prosecutor could prosecute the girls for statutory rape for peeling up their own shirts, then force them to register on the sex offenders list for life.

      We've gotta nip this in the bud! So to speak...

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    68. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      NO, this is going the wrong way. We expect you should have been prosecuted for child pornography (taking pictures of of a girl under 18, namely, yourself), distribution of child pornography (showing them to each other), and statutory rape (lifting the shirt of a 17 year old girl, namely, yourself.)

      Oh my god, three prosecutions for child pornography and child rape! Ooh, imagine the votes from voters for me this fall!

      20 year jail sentences, concurrently! If you had been jailed in 1970 as you should have, you'd be just three years away from completion of your second 20 year term. Too bad they can't force you to register on the sex offenders list along with guys who soddomized four year olds, you sick bastards.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    69. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by notbob · · Score: 0

      if thats true then why is it not legal for me to say fuck damn shit cunt whore nigger on the radio?

      And why is it you get in trouble for calling a black cop a nigger?

      Just curious

    70. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by pissedoffamerican · · Score: 1

      I think you hit the nail on the head.

    71. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      How many times have you done a bulk burn of a directory and you werent sure of all the comments? There isn't enough info here to tell if the CDs were burned with this porn intentionally.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    72. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Darby · · Score: 1

      If I'm gauranteed freedom of the press why can't I publish a paper called "Fuck niggers and ya know what hitler was right about dem jews", legally I cannot publish such "obscenities".

      Your other examples are good, but what's stopping you from doing this?
      I mean, you might have a hard time getting a major publishing house to publish it, but there's nothing illegal about you paying to publish it is there?
      In France and Germany maybe, but I'm pretty sure you can do that in America still.

    73. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once got about a dozen popups on my screen that all contained child porn. About 30 secs later another pop up appeared offering to sell me one of those cache/computer cleaning programs. Knowing how to clean my own computer up I did it. I bet a few people ended up conned into buying that product (as a point of interest my captcha is 'infants')

    74. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

      I use GAIM as my IM client, and I am able to log in to multiple yahoo accounts at the same time using it, with no problem. Others on the same NAT'ed LAN can also connect to yahoo during the same time. There is nothing that prevents you from logging in to multiple yahoo accounts from the same computer except artificial limitations put in place by the official Yahoo IM client.

    75. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by JCota · · Score: 0

      Most likely someone was using an unsecured computer and network to host a child pornography site. It's not an uncommon thing to do for Mp3 site and things like that. it means that if someone reports it, the person ultimatly responsible was the person who failed to install proper AV and Firewalls.

      In the case above the college frat house child pornography theatre the school is also at fault for not requiring the use of an AV, firewall and probably didn't even require the students to sign an acceptable use policy. Which also explains why the school dropped the case.

    76. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I use GAIM as my IM client, and I am able to log in to multiple yahoo accounts at the same time using it, with no problem.

      I didn't say Yahoo! Messenger, I said Yahoo! Groups.

      Falcon
    77. Re:I've seen similar ~3 years ago by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

      Oh. Well, then. Separate browsers, or multiple copies of Firefox with different profiles. I've used the later to log in with two different accounts on some websites, and it wasn't that difficult to set up with FF 2. The only irritating part about it was that I couldn't just click on links in IRC or such, but had to copy and paste them.

  25. sounds like... by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1, Funny

    is 'fighting porn' aka 'mud wrestling'?

  26. Esc by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    You know, maybe the Omish are on to something.

    1. Re:Esc by BillPosters · · Score: 1

      I assume you meant "Amish" and not these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnian

    2. Re:Esc by Gryle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, for crying out loud, it's Amish, not Omish! If you were trying to make a joke about impedence (which I hope you would resist) that would be spelled "Ohmish".

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    3. Re:Esc by anagama · · Score: 1
      If you were trying to make a joke about impedence (which I hope you would resist)
      Geek -- that's "om" not "ohm" -- as in meditation. Go get yourself a Volvo, a flower, a cup of herbal tea, and take a few moments to meditate on how your geek nature prevented you from making a joke about Hari Krishna and instead caused you to hit on the non-sensical "Ohmish" quip. When meditating, start by slowly chanting "ooommmmm" over and over till you are in a trance or your feet start to tingle.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:Esc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were trying to make a joke about impedence (which I hope you would resist) that would be spelled "Ohmish". Remember what the superconducting cyborgs said: Resistence is futile.
  27. What do you expect Prosecutors to do? by toupsie · · Score: 1

    Come on folks, now that White Collar Crime, Terrorism, Murder and Political Corruption have been virtually eliminated from America, what do you expect Prosecutors to spend their time on?

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:What do you expect Prosecutors to do? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      Come on folks, now that White Collar Crime, Terrorism, Murder and Political Corruption have been virtually eliminated from America, what do you expect Prosecutors to spend their time on?

      Minesweeper?

  28. I might be missing something by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But is it plausible to convict a 16y old for child pornography?

    Next they'll be prosecuting young mothers breastfeeding their kids on sexual molestation charges...

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:I might be missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you are 16, you can have sex with a 16 year old, but you can't take pictures.

      Strange place we live in.

    2. Re:I might be missing something by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Under most states' laws, both 16 year olds are guilty of statutory rape.

    3. Re:I might be missing something by Chrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would say it should depend on the sort of pictures. Are the pictures likely within a year or two of himself? If so, then he's displaying fairly normal sexual attractions, and there seems little reason to consider him a threat to children. If the images are clearly of prepubescents, or if he's still looking at ~14-16 year olds when he's 21, then he displays deviant sexual attractions.

      Whether it's convictable, I don't know. Under current laws, I would have to say if the pictures are of prepubescents (a 16 year old is a man, if not in the sight of the law), he's convictable.

      However, I would note there's a big difference between leeching some images and actually abusing children or paying money for images of minors, providing a demand for the continued abuse of children. As disgusting as we may find it, nobody is harmed if someone gets off on underage pictures. There are arguments about likelihood to commit a crime (I am here excluding "victimless" crimes, which I believe includes leeching child pornography), but we convict people for criminal acts, not likelihood to commit criminal acts.

    4. Re:I might be missing something by Cadallin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, Absolutely! In fact, according to one study cited on Wikipedia, the age group most charged for Child Pornography offenses is young males aged 15-20. Note that the law makes absolutely no distinction between pictures depicting an 8 year old, and pictures depicting a 16 year old. Both are "Child" Porn, both get you convictions resulting in registered sex offender list for life. Which, yes indeed, means that two 16 year olds (who may very well be consenting depending on jurisdiction) can have sex with each other, and thats fine, but if they videotape it, or take pictures, they can end up with felony Child pornography convictions.

    5. Re:I might be missing something by Mr2001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No... in most states (that is, more than half), the age of consent is 16 or lower, so neither one is guilty. Many of the remaining states have exceptions to cover the case of two minors, or a minor and an adult who are both very close to the limit.

      You are correct about a few states, though - particularly California, where the AOC is 18, and two 17 year olds who have sex with each other are both "sex offenders". Kinda puts this whole outrage over sex offenders into perspective, doesn't it? Everyone wants the real child molestors to go to jail, but the language they use ends up also covering kids who really haven't done anything wrong, other than being born in the wrong state.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    6. Re:I might be missing something by Carnildo · · Score: 1
      Next they'll be prosecuting young mothers breastfeeding their kids on sexual molestation charges...


      It's happened. There was a case about 15 years back where a woman asked her doctor if it was normal to get sexually aroused while breastfeeding, and after misinterpretation of the question by a secretary, was hauled up on charges of child molestation.

      (The answer, incidentally, is "yes".)
      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    7. Re:I might be missing something by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Nope. Under most states' laws, both 16 year olds are guilty of statutory rape.

      Using the logic of these laws, we should charge any child who has seen him/herself naked with possesion of kiddie porn.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    8. Re:I might be missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but they will convict babies on molesting their sixteen year old mothers.

    9. Re:I might be missing something by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1

      Then the government would try to confiscate their memories...

    10. Re:I might be missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue with underage pictures is that the children were harmed in their creation.

      Someone consuming the content is creating a market for it; they're players in the whole disgusting mess.

    11. Re:I might be missing something by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are a number of teenage girls on sex offender lists for taking pictures of themselves!

    12. Re:I might be missing something by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are arguments about likelihood to commit a crime (I am here excluding "victimless" crimes, which I believe includes leeching child pornography), but we convict people for criminal acts, not likelihood to commit criminal acts.

            The crime in that is inducing a minor to be photographed indecently exposed. Like statuatory rape, they are not legally capable of doing so voluntarily.

            So one could say, oh, well, the one who took the pixtures is a criminal but everyone who bought them (or traded, etc.) didn't induce it. But of course the fact they are a market does induce it.

            And it could be like a gang standing around a murder victim. Someone pulled the trigger, but who? You just convict them all is the only way to deal with it.

        rd

    13. Re:I might be missing something by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      It gets even scarier.

      Those mothers actually had those kids in their vaginas at one point!!

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    14. Re:I might be missing something by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      And, thanks to idiot Florida law, flashing while on spring break.

    15. Re:I might be missing something by Chrax · · Score: 1

      So one could say, oh, well, the one who took the pixtures is a criminal but everyone who bought them (or traded, etc.) didn't induce it. But of course the fact they are a market does induce it.

      Of course, in my original post, I stipulated that we were talking about those that are neither involved in the photography or purchase it. Would you consider that a market?

      To extract this from the emotional context, suppose somebody creates audio files, or any media. Some people buy these media, and some simply retrieve them via a P2P network. I would consider the former group the market, and thus complicit in the further creation of the media, while the latter would not be.

    16. Re:I might be missing something by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      It's happened. There was a case about 15 years back where a woman asked her doctor if it was normal to get sexually aroused while breastfeeding, and after misinterpretation of the question by a secretary, was hauled up on charges of child molestation.

      I thought the kid in question was something like 7 years old, though. That's a bit over the top. 2 years old I can understand, but 7, c'mon?

      (The answer, incidentally, is "yes".)

      Not surprising - this is nature's way of making sure that mothers actually feed their kids. Presumably the mothers who said "eew, this hurts and why do I want my nipple in something's mouth" had their babies die and were thus cut out of the gene pool.

      -b.

    17. Re:I might be missing something by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Of course, in my original post, I stipulated that we were talking about those that are neither involved in the photography or purchase it. Would you consider that a market?

            And how would they get it? They must either purchase or trade in their own child porn pictures to a group, which has to by now be very hard to do amidst all the scrutiny.

        rd

    18. Re:I might be missing something by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      This thread is useless without..oops, nevermind! :)

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    19. Re:I might be missing something by Killshot · · Score: 1

      Yes, and children have been convicted of producing or posessing child pornography.

      I believe at one time I read about a teenage girl who was posting nude photos of herself online getting charged with producing child porn.

    20. Re:I might be missing something by AusIV · · Score: 1
      Where are you getting this? First, in most states, two 16 year olds having consensual sex is legal, neither party is committing statutory rape. In most of the remaining states, it's some trivial charge that usually leads to counseling sessions, but it's not statutory rape between two people both under the age of consent. There may be a state or two in which both parties could be charged with statutory rape, but saying most states would find both parties guilty of statutory rape is just plain wrong. Furthermore, many states have laws protecting people who are just over the age of consent and having sex with people just under the age of consent. If an 18 year old is having sex with a 15 year old, his charges are going to be fairly trivial, and he generally won't be registering as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

      I know this is slashdot, but I wish people would have some idea what they're talking about before they speak with authority on a subject.

    21. Re:I might be missing something by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Close - she called the wrong hotline - child abuse hotline instead of LaLeche League.

      The real outrage was that the final abuse ruling was predicated on the trauma she put her kid through while *trying to get her back* through the court system. The court ruled that, by fighting for custody (it had been years, I think), she was abusing the kid by dragging her into court, and therefor wasn't a fit mother.

      Paging Judge Yossarian...

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    22. Re:I might be missing something by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Using the logic of these laws, we should charge any child who has seen him/herself naked with possesion of kiddie porn.

      Technically, you'd have to fix it to a medium to be kiddie porn. That'd just be indecent exposure to a minor. (Yes, I see the irony of applying logic to absurdity)

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    23. Re:I might be missing something by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      There are a number of teenage girls on sex offender lists for taking pictures of themselves!

      And, thanks to idiot Florida law, flashing while on spring break.

      There was some cases in one Fl county about women walking around topless and getting tickets, maybe it was Pinellas county. Anyway some of the women filed a discrimination lawsuit, they were being discriminated because they were women and were ticketted for being topless while men weren't getting tickets for being topless as well. Eventually they decided to stop ticketing for being topless. Darn, I wish I recall when this happened but it was sometime in the late '80s or early '90s.

      Falcon
    24. Re:I might be missing something by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note that the law makes absolutely no distinction between pictures depicting an 8 year old, and pictures depicting a 16 year old.

      There's a reason for that: it is not relevant.

      The purpose of sexual hysteria laws is to cause hysteria - by causing hysteria, you turn otherwise healthy, normal people against each other. People who fight each other are easier to control, manipulate, and tax. Injecting "sense" or "reason" into such laws is counterproductive for the most vocal mouthpieces who support them (in their current state).
      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    25. Re:I might be missing something by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      Using the logic of these laws, we should charge any child who has seen him/herself naked with possesion of kiddie porn.

      Don't laugh. It is a sick society we live in - tolerant of bloodshed, violent TV and movies, celebrations of war and police brutality. We fear nudity and we fear sex. It is not inconceivable that one day we will be forced by the religious fundamentalists to wear clothing to conceal ourselves from each other (sound familiar?) or even ourselves.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    26. Re:I might be missing something by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 2, Interesting

      we should charge any child who has seen him/herself naked with possesion of kiddie porn.

      That reminds of this case where a 15 year old girl was charged with kiddie porn of HERSELF...
      I linked the BLOG because the original news story has gone away...:(

      BWP

    27. Re:I might be missing something by Chrax · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I buy that. Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't see a 16 year old kid finding his way into a child porn ring, and then somehow managed to avoid implicating his contacts when he gets investigated.

      Because if they could tell he was in a ring, you can be damn sure they wouldn't have let him off.

    28. Re:I might be missing something by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      Using the logic of these laws, we should charge any child who has seen him/herself naked with possesion of kiddie porn.

      And when a minor masturbates him/herself, he/she can be charged as a sex offender for the "sexual assault against a minor"...

      --
      So say we all
    29. Re:I might be missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a child lays on a sand beach and leaves impression of his/her body into the sand, is it enough for conviction?

      To avoid the emergence of such questions the most ill-logical (and therefore the most probable) way would be to make the possession of any tools and means for creation of CP illegal. Then everyone with a child body can be tried as adult and put to jail.

    30. Re:I might be missing something by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      Rochester NY in the 89-92 timespan had the same issue. 7 women got arrested on a weekly basis for topless sunbathing in one of the parks -- NY Appeals court ruled in their favor.

    31. Re:I might be missing something by neelakantankk · · Score: 1

      so basically a 15 year old watching a 17 year old girl naked is an adult watching child porn? Damn stupid laws. You expect the kid to be curious. and showing his friends playboy.....be realistic, for the love of God. And are magazines that provide demos of games which are "mature" guilty of "endangering minors"?

    32. Re:I might be missing something by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      No, he's not an adult. But the situation you described, if occurring in the real world (a 15 year old boy, and a 17 year old girl fooling around) may or may not be legal depending on Jurisdiction. In most of the USA, most of the time, if nobody is complaining, most District Attorneys won't prosecute (although if the age of consent is 18, which it is in some states, BOTH the boy AND the girl would be guilty of statutory rape{note the repeated "most" plenty of people get prosecuted for just such situations every year}). That most DA's don't prosecute makes it somewhat "de jure" legal, although that is dependent on the Mercy of a DA, and if either of the kid's parent's want to prosecute, well all hell can break loose.

      However, if either makes pictures or video of the event, they are absolutely at risk of being prosecuted under Child Pornography laws. Hell, that can be true even if BOTH parties can legally consent to have sex within the Jurisdiction (for example, in several states in the US, 16 is the legal age of consent).

      I'm not saying any of this is sane or logical. It's just how crazy things have gotten.

    33. Re:I might be missing something by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      I could make a snide comment about how this kind of hysterical politics is what happens when you let women vote, but

      ...Shit too late.

      Just in case anyone thinks otherwise, I do not actually think Women's suffrage is to blame for the current state of "Talking Point" divisive issue politics. I'm just making a crude joke, that I think some may find funny. In reality, I think that men are at the very least just as responsible for the status quo, if not more so.

    34. Re:I might be missing something by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      Easiest way to solve the issue?

      Let kids vote. If you can be held accountable for a crime, then you have the right to vote. Period.

      Same goes for felons. It literally blows my mind Americans can be denied the right to vote. It is incompatible with me. If you are expected to follow the law, and you can be jailed for breaking it, you need the right to vote. Period. No exceptions, ever.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    35. Re:I might be missing something by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I buy that. Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't see a 16 year old kid finding his way into a child porn ring, and then somehow managed to avoid implicating his contacts when he gets investigated.

            I agree. I don't think he was involved in any such thing.

        rd

    36. Re:I might be missing something by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      I tend to think that an absolute age based franchise is a really poor solution. Certainly I think there exist 14 year olds who possess the capacity to make the kind of decisions necessary for full legal rights, however, I don't think they all do (and for that matter neither do all 18 year olds, or hell even 30 year olds). I am unsure as to how to solve the problem, quite possibly it might be as simple as letting anyone who can prove American citizenship vote, if they want to, however I don't really like this solution, and any others I can think of are clearly subject to potential abuse.

      I agree with you about felons though, largely because there are large groups of convicted felons that are perfectly decent human beings. At the same time I think there are lots of slimy fuckers out there (many of them running around in business suits) that are pretty reprehensible.

  29. Sharing a playboy magazine an offence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. It turns out that 16 year old boys like to look at playboy. I guess every heterosexual male on the planet should be charged. I know I never looked at playboy when I was 16. I'm sure the prosecutor didn't either. This hurts my brain.

  30. Remember the name Andrew Thomas by Associate · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    This zealot has an agenda and ambition that will stop at nothing. I only hope that Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County district attorney, won't seek any higher public office or any office for that matter.

    --
    Someone hates these cans.
  31. The real problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a total waste of government funds. Why should I have to give up MY hard-earned money just so no one masturbates to YOUR kid?

  32. For 90% of the population by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Their PC is a black (beige) box which gives them an internet. They know nothing more than that.

    And we sadists in our wisdom unleash Windows XP as the tool to use. In fact it's a shite solution for that 90%. The Network Computer or similar concept is much better. All they should have to do is plug their tv, a keyboard and mouse into a $30 router and then forget about it.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:For 90% of the population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, people don't want WebTV. Tried and failed.

    2. Re:For 90% of the population by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And we sadists in our wisdom unleash Windows XP as the tool to use. In fact it's a shite solution for that 90%.

            I'm no MSFT fan, but are you kidding me. You have people basically downloading anything they think looks good to them. They are so greedy and so clueless bad people around the internet don't have to try very hard to own them.

            Basically right now it's a wash. People get a lot of stuff for free, software, pictures, songs, movies, but some of them lose their bank accounts or even their identity. But hey, don't worry, click here to download.

            Sort of like a reverse lottery.

        rd

    3. Re:For 90% of the population by alshithead · · Score: 1

      "They are so greedy and so clueless bad people around the internet don't have to try very hard to own them."

      I'll agree with clueless but I have an issue with "greedy". Because they are clueless they don't understand that "free" could equal bad. TANSTAAFL comes to mind. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Robert Heinlein was prescient to many issues we face today. I only hope that some of his worst scenarios don't come to fruition. All though...killing all the lawyers might improve the US to a degree...just kidding. Lawyers have their place in society too. The big issue is that your regular, everyday user has no concept of the evil that can come about from just clicking on a link for some free, minor computer knick knack. Someone please save us from free screen savers, games, and cursors.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    4. Re:For 90% of the population by CronoCloud · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The problem with WebTV wasn't the concept, the problems was they didn't release new enhanced boxes fast enough and the original hardware design wasn't imaginative enough.

      They couldn't figure out a way to do mouse pointing remotely so they used the hospot system., and turned frames into tables. they didn't want horizontal scrolling so they reformmated pages badly. There was no local storage that was user accesible so users couldn't do certain things. The proprietary software also made it impossible to have reasonable access to certain file formats, like say PDF for government forms. Problem is those design decisions as hur the machine's quality of use.

      They never thought of doing some kind of wireless mouse, or of using USB. They never thought about using flash cards for storage, or even of implementing certani requested features, like BCC in e-mail. WebTV was easy to use, yes, but too restricted in functionality. WebTV users were constantly complaining about that. Turns out, what most of them really wanted was a simple $200 computer.

      And worse, computers dropped in price, so even if they weren't as simple, they had the functionality

      What WebTV should have done was offer their software to Sony, Nintendo, so they could sell a "WebTV" disc for use with their PS2's and Gamecubes. They did that with the Dreamcast, but only in Japan, probably because even at that time, Microsoft was planning the Xbox and some WebTV team members were shifted to the Xbox division

      Microsoft does sell the new enhanced MSNTV units that are broadband capable and are based on Windows CE IIRC.

      Nowadays a PS3's or Wii's built in browsers are better than the WebTV one and the PS3's (and PS2's) ability to run Linux make them far better "internet on TV" devices than the old WebTV units.

    5. Re:For 90% of the population by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with clueless but I have an issue with "greedy". Because they are clueless they don't understand that "free" could equal bad.

            Well that's a good point, but they know that what they are downloading is bootlegged, stolen goods. So yes, they don't want to buy a CD or movie but they'll take it if they can. That's greedy.

            I used to record off of friend's CD's, and sharing is good, but the mass distribution thing is just pirating, and sad to say, whatever people had going on before may have been a lot of fun but now all they've got is a pipeline from hell out there on the internet.

        rd

    6. Re:For 90% of the population by Deoxyribose · · Score: 1

      A large portion of spyware comes not from downloading p2p programs and the 82 KB "WindowsXPFULLVERSION.exe" files found on them, but from stuff like the free screensavers, pointers, games etc. that pop-up ads can be seen advertising. Not all spyware comes from piracy, not all "free" things come from piracy.

    7. Re:For 90% of the population by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Not all spyware comes from piracy, not all "free" things come from piracy.

            That's true, but I don't think I used the term spyware. And regardless of what really ends up being free, the lures of thieves are hidden among them.

        rd

    8. Re:For 90% of the population by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Because they are clueless they don't understand that "free" could equal bad. TANSTAAFL comes to mind. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Robert Heinlein was prescient to many issues we face today.

      Sure there is. For example, when a corporation one of my relatives works in got new computers, they gave me one of their old ones. I got a server for my home network and they got rid of their old junk without having to pay for recycling. Win-win, free lunch.

      There are plenty of free lunches when the society becomes so rich that they throw away perfectly functional equipment to get a better replacement. Our cities have large populations of animals who grow fat on our garbage - heck, the city I live in has larger population density of nonhuman species than any forest I've ever seen.

      As long as you don't demand the best and newest, but are willing to wait a few years, the chances are that you can get it for free, and whoever gives it to you will thank you for taking it off his hands.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:For 90% of the population by klang · · Score: 1

      For a too high percentage of the population; ..the "computer" is the big box that shows images. ..the "harddisk" is the box under the table. ..the "internet" is called AOL.

  33. NO IE! by lordvalrole · · Score: 1

    How about not using Internet Explorer. Fixes just about everything dealing with spyware or adware. It is simple and loads better than IE.

    Or we can prosecute companies that hijack your computer and then want you to buy their software to remove their crap.

    BTW for the sub who got into trouble...that was really weak. Anyways, a lot of kids know about sexual stuff in junior high or even below. They may not understand completely but they know about it.

  34. Rather than posting a comment. by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll just let my signature speak for me.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:Rather than posting a comment. by fatduck · · Score: 1

      How many civilizations have you used to standardize your test?

      --
      Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
    2. Re:Rather than posting a comment. by superwiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why it's a test -- not the test.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  35. The 20/20 article doesn't say much by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

    200 infected files doesn't mean much to me. My father has McAfee Privacy Something on his computer and it lists every cookie as a "malicious program" or some such thing. Is that what this computer forensic expert for the defense did? Just run some commercial anti-spyware app and testify to the results?

    It's great this kid passed a polygraph, but as is mentioned on Slashdot everytime polygraphs come up, they are bunk. I don't see any reason to think that this kid didn't download something illegal.

    1. Re:The 20/20 article doesn't say much by wvitXpert · · Score: 1

      Guilty until proven innocent?

    2. Re:The 20/20 article doesn't say much by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      "I don't see any reason to think that this kid didn't download something illegal."

      Yeah, but do you see a reason to think that he did?

  36. Really? by elzurawka · · Score: 2, Informative

    "when he was charged in Arizona with possession of child pornography, even though the family computer was riddled with spy-ware and Trojans."

    I am currently taking a Data Forensics Course at Sheridan Institute, and the teacher of the course is a Peel Region Data Forensics officer. He told us in the last 5 years of him being there he has not once come across a machine where child porn was put on the machine by a popup, or spyware. He Said this does not happen, as it would be easily traced back to the company that advertised it. This is not a valid deference in child pornography cases

    --
    -EL
    1. Re:Really? by rezac · · Score: 0

      Wow, did he also tell you that the first amendment didn't apply to the states too?

      --
      -- my sig got /.'d
    2. Re:Really? by wjeff · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't read very well do you, it wasn't spyware and/or popups, it was trojans and/or rootkits.

      From the Article:
      [For that answer, they turned to computer forensic expert Tammi Loehrs. ...

      Loehrs went into the Bandys' computer and what she found could frighten any parent -- more than 200 infected files, so-called backdoors that allowed hackers to access the family computer from remote locations, no where near Matthew's house.]

      With the proliferation of rootkits, and lack security on most home computers, I wouldn't be the least suprised if most perverts use hacked computers to access child porn these days.

      I seem to remember there was a case in Texas similar to this about 8 months ago, where a man was arrested and charged with possessing child porn on his computer. Luckily for him, the local police department's computer forensics people were actually clueful and found the rootkit used to control the computer.

      Not to mention the well documented use of open wireless networks to access illegal content.

      The problem with computer security these days, is that it requires to far too much expertise and vigilance to keep your computer secure, even if you are an experienced professional, much less the proverbial hapless grandma.

      When you have to spend hundreds of dollars a year, and 5 hours a week keeping your computer clean and updated, and then never open emails the look like they came from your grandkids, or from your quilting circle web-ring. All the supposed productivity benefits of using a computer rapidly disappear.

      --
      my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
    3. Re:Really? by neonmonk · · Score: 1

      Sure. What is more likely though is that his computer was being controlled by someone else. Someone else who was using his computer to share Kiddy Porn.

      Not as unlikely.

    4. Re:Really? by Song0330 · · Score: 1

      For popups and spyware, of course. What about trojans? A bored, mischievous kid could easily backdoor the computer of his parents/teachers/boss/enemies, upload illegal content, and call in an anonymous tip. A real easy way to ruin someone's life. If the kid was good, he could probably erase his tracks.

    5. Re:Really? by raehl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He told us in the last 5 years of him being there he has not once come across a machine where child porn was put on the machine by a popup, or spyware. He Said this does not happen, as it would be easily traced back to the company that advertised it.

      But popups and spyware are a good indication that the computer wasn't secure, and the computer not being secure is an indication that OTHER things may have been placed on there without the users knowledge.

    6. Re:Really? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1
      He Said this does not happen, as it would be easily traced back to the company that advertised it.

      Who says it was a commercial product? A lot of the trojans were probably not a company advertising a product, but a tool to do mischief. Such as turning the kid's computer into a denial-of-service zombie. Or stashing a collection of child porn, so the real pedophiles are harder to find. Such software will not put up a pop-up advertising a product.

      It's rather disturbing to think that you and your forensics teacher both believe that all trojans come from commercial interests and can be easily tracked down. Even if it was some sort of corporate entity, good luck serving that search warrant outside of "Western" nations. Like if the kiddy-porn pop-up is hosted in Angola.

    7. Re:Really? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I am currently taking a Data Forensics Course at Sheridan Institute, and the teacher of the course is a Peel Region Data Forensics officer. He told us in the last 5 years of him being there he has not once come across a machine where child porn was put on the machine by a popup, or spyware. He Said this does not happen, as it would be easily traced back to the company that advertised it. This is not a valid deference in child pornography cases

      I don't think I've seen a hosed pop-up/spyware machine that didn't also contain half a dozen or more trojans. Translation: Anyone using a trojan to satisfy their kiddie porn needs will get away with it. Just make sure to leave some so they'll nab the wrong guy, instead of just acting like a pass-thru proxy.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he doesn't read well. If he could, he would have gone to University of Toronto, York University, or at the very, very least Ryerson. Sheridan College is even lower than an American junior college, it's akin to Devry. No wonder he doesn't realize how stupid he sounds. Even in his statement, if it were a Trojan that is enough to hijack the kid's computer.

    9. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, trojans can install anything, including child porn.

      Second, while spyware and popups may not, their presence is a strong indicator that a computer is open to outside control, including - possibly undetected - software that would.

      Last, if said officer's statement is backed by the verdicts, well you'd expect that, wouldn't you. It's a perfectly circular argument: they were convicted, so it's not the crapware they had on their boxes, right? So he's never seen crapware installing porn, so they prosecute. The "expert" testifies, and the jury goes with him. See, it's not the crapware, it was him!

    10. Re:Really? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Try surfing for cracks online sometime. 99% of the banner are for porn, and a large percentage of that is very iffy at best as to legality. Now you might argue that the cracks themselves aren't legal but there are plenty of fair-use reasons to have them

    11. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not to mention the well documented use of open wireless networks to access illegal content.


      Word. In Toronto, 4 years ago, there was the case of the war driving pedophile. I'm not sure what the outcome of the case was, but he was caught in the act with his shit pulled out and a jar of hand cream.
    12. Re:Really? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I'm honestly surprised that that scenario hasn't happened yet.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    13. Re:Really? by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Well in my last 2 years of fixing computers for people I've come across directories that filled with all manor of pornography on four separate systems.

      Each one had a hidden FTP server installed and was an Fserve on IRC.

      These computers belonged to people that would never be interested in that sort of thing. Even then the chances that they set up an FTP server like that, and an fserve no less, would be incredibly slim.

    14. Re:Really? by Song0330 · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is, it probably has.

    15. Re:Really? by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your instructor is pretty dense for someone teaching a "Data Forensics Course". A trojan or rootkit downloads whatever the person who created the program wants it to download. Typically, they are used to send spam or engage in DOS attacks, but there is absolutly no reason that if someone wanted to download illegal materials, that they wouldn't use a compromised machine to hide their actions.

    16. Re:Really? by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      One of the CSI type TV shows had an episode where a porn bomb was deliberately emailed to someone as a way to frame that person. In that fictional episode, the porn bomb was sent to a sex offender who was out on probation. It was either sent to his computer or one that he had access to. For some reason,someone had wanted to make it look like he had violated the terms of his parole. In that episode they examined the hard drive and found the original email message with the attached porn bomb. Other methods of accessing a computer and doing something similar might be harder to trace.

      The scary thing is, that it might be too easy to frame someone and then somehow tip off law enforcement. I don't know much about the law, but they would probably need to have more than an anonymous tip to have adequate probable cause to break down the door and seize the computer. Even so, with just a little more planning, it might be too easy to frame someone such as a teacher, boss, competitor, enemy, political opponent, ex-husband, new husband or whistle blower. Imagine what could theoretically happen if an ordinary person with a poorly secured computer ever managed to greatly annoy a highly skilled computer expert, hacker or a large corporation.

    17. Re:Really? by MoralHazard · · Score: 1

      I would be careful of taking the dude without a grain of salt. And I speak from personal experience. A few jobs ago, I was beginning the career path into data forensics, with a private firm handling mostly civil litigation issues. In the course of our work, I interacted with a lot of people who performed computer forensics, in various capacities, in private and public sector companies.

      At the beginning, I was young and didn't have a college background in CS, so I assumed most of the 30-40-something professionals (lots of current and ex-cops, including some with technical degrees) knew more than I did. As a knee-jerk reaction, my usual first instinct was to believe that the other guys knew more than me about forensics.

      I began to realize after a few months that most of these people, whether self-qualified or with an EnCase certification, were pretty clueless. Guys get into forensics because they are the lone PC enthusiast in the local PD, and it's a cushier job than busting crack dealers. Their supervisors pay $3,000 a pop to send them to a certification-mill course (even the BEST forensics certs are 1/10 as much effort as a RHCE or MCSE, let alone a real cert like Cisco does), and they can suddenly be sent into court by a prosecutor. Five or six years later, Joe Law realizes that private consulting firms will triple his salary to do the same thing, and they take early retirement. But their actual work, in ALL of this, is about as hard as collecting shell casings from a crime scene.

      The qualifications to become a certified, court-approved, well-paid "expert" in computer forensics are only *slightly* more meaningful that the qualifications to become an expert in Satanic Ritual Abuse. The certs are about whether you know how to use the software interface, not whether you can analyze the data. The fact that someone's testified before is circular logic. And years of experience don't mean anything because most of those years were spent running automated disk-acquisition programs and running searches for "*.jpg", NOT analysing anything. It is really, REALLY hard to tell the good from the bad.

      Things may be starting to change, with more actual college course focusing on forensics, but I seriously doubt the integrity of the curriculum when (for one) there is so much financial incentive for schools to grab people with dubious qualifications to fill an instructor spot, and (for another) the entire instructor pool is made up of the gits I described above. Give the field another three generations, and MAYBE it'll be worth something. Til then, be skeptical.

      (There ARE some high-quality, extremely good people in the field who I know... Mike in NY, and Bill in Seattle, big shout out. But the odds are not good that you'll get one of those guys on your side.)

  37. The reall attack is on porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republicans (the pedophile protectors of virtue) are trying to make all porn illegal. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings.

  38. Even if it WAS intentional.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would it still be that wrong? Why would a sixteen-year-old find a forty-year-old-woman attractive? At that age, you still develop an attraction to other 16 and 15 year old girls. But anyone featured in pornography under the age of 18 is considered child porn.

    These things should be looked at with relativity. And some lawyers and politicians need to remember that they were kids once. Rediculous, "possession of a playboy." I can understand cigarettes or alcohol, but it's illegal to be curious now?

    1. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by dosius · · Score: 1

      At 15 I was attracted to women in their 30s and 40s, it's not impossible...

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    2. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      At 15 I was attracted to women in their 30s and 40s

      Who *wasn't*? Almost everybody has had a crush on a teacher.
    3. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by tOaOMiB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason child porn is illegal is not because being attracted to minors is a crime, not matter what your age. The reason it is a crime is because you are feeding an industry that is preying on children. Children under 18 are not considered old enough to make the decision to appear in porn. So sure, at 16, it's perfectly reasonable to be attracted to girls his age. But supporting those girls as they start a pornography career (under the influence of others) is what's wrong!

    4. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by QuasiEvil · · Score: 1

      Does the acronym MILF come to mind? Seriously, in high school, one of my friends got a new step-mom - a seriously smokin' hot redhead in her early 40s. I definitely would have hit that if I had the chance back then, as would most of my friends. Too bad we never did.

      Yeah, it happens. There's just something very sexy about an attractive, intelligent, stable woman who has her act together when all you're surrounded by high school girls with personalities a millimeter thick.

    5. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One must seriously question *why* it is considered wrong. Surly much of what is bad about it comes from the fact it is so illegal and taboo that the only way it can be done is in the most painful way to those involved. If it was legal, it would become a business like any other (and thus regulated, unlike the black-market crap that goes on now) and I predict that much of the secret photographing/abductions/etc would stop because they would be too costly and hard compared to the legal way.

      Prohibition caused much more crime then it stopped, and always will, just look at the "war on drugs" and people killed in gun fights or because of drugs laden with toxins every day. When there is a demand for something, making it illegal to produce it in an ethical way will simply make it's production non-ethical, this has been proven many times in history and isn't changing any time soon.

      You can say that some 14 year old can't make an informed decision- maybe they can't, I can't speak for them and nether can you. But I can say that it's certainly the lesser of evils.

      *Waits for down modding and FBI to show up at door*

    6. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by hublan · · Score: 1
      The reason child porn is illegal is not because being attracted to minors is a crime, not matter what your age. The reason it is a crime is because you are feeding an industry that is preying on children. Children under 18 are not considered old enough to make the decision to appear in porn. So sure, at 16, it's perfectly reasonable to be attracted to girls his age. But supporting those girls as they start a pornography career (under the influence of others) is what's wrong!


      Yeah, but dude... Seriously. In this day and age of cameras on every goddamn thing, taking nekkid pictures of your 16 year old girlfriend with your cellphone, when you yourself is 16 years old, constitutes possession of child pornography and can land you in jail with an indelible mark on your record long after serving your trumped up sentence. How can that not be wrong in the light of the circumstances? It's like jailing pot smokers. They did nothing to nobody but their lives are now irrecoverably ruined because some asshat AG figured it was the winning ticket for the next local election.

      I'm starting to think that anyone in position of power should not be voted, they should be hired and therefore easily fired if they get too frisky with their new found source of power.

      --
      My spoon is too big.
    7. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by Black-Man · · Score: 1

      "Preying on children"? I think its more "preying on moron adults". And maybe its good. Seeing some of the disgusting web sites that exist and some of the bizarre fetishes they promote makes one aware of what a sick, disgusting society we live in - and all of the perverts out there.

      Sheesh... what happened to the good ol' days when I was a kid when sneaking a copy of Penthouse or Playboy from my dad or older brother was considered "obscene"?

    8. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      When there is a demand for something, making it illegal to produce it in an ethical way will simply make it's production non-ethical, this has been proven many times in history and isn't changing any time soon.

      You don't seen to understand the nature of contraband. The reason it won't change anytime soon, is because of the massive profit margins prohibition generates in many industries, legitimate and otherwise. Child porn is no different. And like the loudmouth gay bashing politician who turns out to be as queer as a threee dollar bill, the people making the most noise about kiidie porn are thenselves the ones running the business. Maybe they just want to wipe out the competition. Prohibition is driven by economics, not ethics.

      --
      What?
    9. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by 49152 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Children under 18 are not considered old enough to make the decision to appear in porn.

      That argument falls flat on its face if you consider a 16 year old enough to understand he should resist his perfectly normal urge to watch nude girls in order to prevent the pornography industry exploiting 16 year old girls.

      Either a 16 year old is an adult or a child, make up your mind it cant be both.

    10. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by anagama · · Score: 1

      Go to IMDB. Search "Harold & Maude". Oh look, it even has a wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_and_Maude

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    11. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One must seriously question *why* it is considered wrong. Surly much of what is bad about it comes from the fact it is so illegal and taboo that the only way it can be done is in the most painful way to those involved. If it was legal, it would become a business like any other (and thus regulated, unlike the black-market crap that goes on now) and I predict that much of the secret photographing/abductions/etc would stop because they would be too costly and hard compared to the legal way.

      With all due respect, I believe you misunderstand. The intent of these laws isn't entirely to protect children. It is very easy to realize when you see them being used to attack children - the very people they were supposedly created to protect.

      This is one case, but there have been many, where children were charged for having sex with each other, or possessing images of people their own age.

      The purpose of this law, at least to some extent, is to teach "morals" to young people. If you delay the onset of sexual maturity long enough, what results is a frustrated, easily manipulated adult populace that seeks other forms of acceptance and understanding. This is a service the church seeks to provide, and the main mouthpieces of the sexual repression crowd are religious fundamentalists.

      On a side note - and I mean this not as a troll, but as an expression from the very core of my being - I truly feel that anyone involved in this case that supported the prosecution of this "child" deserves two in the chest, and one in the head.

      Claiming that you fight for someone, while in fact ruining their lives (ie. Iraq) is despicable.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    12. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The reason it is a crime is because you are feeding an industry that is preying on children. Children under 18 are not considered old enough to make the decision to appear in porn.


      I call bullshit.

      If a 16yo girl takes a snapshot of herself with her 16yo boyfriend on her camera phone, purely for their own use, but a teacher sees it when she gets caught using her phone in class, that's the same as a picture of a preteen prostitute having sex with an old man, despite the fact that the teens can legally have sex with each other. Both the boy and girl conceivably get charged, in this example.

      Yes, that feeds an industry, but not the kiddy porn one. Just the one that has a vested interest in seeing abuse cases continue to roll in. Shall we call it the child abuse industry? Because that's what they're doing, sometimes, these supposed protectors of kids.

    13. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by OzRoy · · Score: 1

      I don't think I could ever condone using children in pornography. At that age it's impossible to tell how such things will affect an individual. Maybe some of them won't be harmed, but you will never really know until they grow up. However, a better way would be computer generated imagery. We are getting to a point where CGI is almost photo real. Should such images be considered illegal? No one was harmed in the making of them.

    14. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The reason it is a crime is because you are feeding an industry that is preying on children.

      This isn't rocket science here: Go after and prosecute the people MAKING child pornography as part of this industry, and not after 16 year olds looking at pictures of 16 year olds.
    15. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by fafalone · · Score: 1

      What people really need to realize is that research has suggested CP actually protects more children than it hurts. Some people are sexually attracted to children, it doesn't matter how harsh the laws are or how evil it's considered by however many people, they can't change it any more than anyone can choose whether they're attracted to men or women. However, they can control their natural urges and resist actually going out and molesting a kid. Some people can't resist, some can, and some (a substantial proportion) can be satisfied another way. CP can serve to satisfy the urges of many pedophiles enough to prevent them from having to satisfy it by doing something themselves. And the harsher the laws, the more kids are going to be molested. If a pedophile is going to get life for having as little as 10 pictures, well they might as well go out and get the real thing and probably would only be sentenced to a fraction of that term.

      Of course, the attitude of the public is going to be, it doesn't matter how many children we can save, we can't be soft on these evil people and condone such immorality. Just like drugs.

    16. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by misanthrope101 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You can say that some 14 year old can't make an informed decision- maybe they can't, I can't speak for them and nether can you. But I can say that it's certainly the lesser of evils.
      Well, if they picked up a sniper rifle and killed someone we'd definitely consider them responsible for their decisions, It wouldn't matter if they had an IQ of 82 and had been beaten in the head with a shovel. But if they layed down with a 30 year old, then they're a victim, a mere wisp of a child, the picture of bucolic innocence, and it would be the end of civilization as we know it to recognize their capacity to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have sex.
    17. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1
      What people really need to realize is that research has suggested CP actually protects more children than it hurts.


      You really ought to back that up with a link or at least the name of the study. I know it's not a habit around here... but in this case your claim is just not credible without some backup.
    18. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by urbanradar · · Score: 1

      The reason child porn is illegal is not because being attracted to minors is a crime, not matter what your age. The reason it is a crime is because you are feeding an industry that is preying on children. Children under 18 are not considered old enough to make the decision to appear in porn. So sure, at 16, it's perfectly reasonable to be attracted to girls his age. But supporting those girls as they start a pornography career (under the influence of others) is what's wrong!

      It's a pretty well known fact nowadays that the lion share of people who get caught with child porn on their computers downloaded it off various filesharing networks or traded it with other "collectors". Also, looking at some studies that have been done on child pornography, it seems that most of the material found on filesharing networks was either commercially produced in the 1960s and 1970s or privately produced. You can read up on these facts in the Wikipedia article about child pornography, but it can be easily verified from other sources, too.

      My point is: 99% of people with child pornography didn't pay for it, they didn't have influence on its production, and no contact with the makers. Since the rules of supply and demand don't apply when there's no money/other compensation involved, there is no real reason to believe that heightened demand in child porn causes more production of it. In general, people who own child porn are not "feeding an industry". That is pure groupthink. You know. "Think of the children."

      Now, naturally, I do not in any way condone child porn. When a child is abused and the abuser distributes recordings of the abuse, that causes the child to suffer even more. And believe me, there is nothing that gets my blood boiling with rage faster than seeing someone cause a child to suffer unnecessarily.

      The emotional hurt that stems from the knowledge that recordings of the abuse are circulating somewhere out there stems from the abuser first putting the material *on* P2P or wherever. It seems to me that whether two or two million see the recordings after that can't be measured reliably and doesn't make much difference any more. The damage has already been done by that point, by the abuser, the moment he made the recordings available.

      So what I'm basically getting at, is that I'm having trouble seeing how exactly people leeching child porn off P2P are causing damage. They don't cause the creation of new material and thus don't cause more abuse; and the emotional hurt for the victim doesn't stem from them but simply from the fact that the material is available.

      Okay, you might argue that child pornography "inspires" abuse and encourages the viewer to abuse. But I've read of several studies that found no significant link between viewing child pornography and abusing. And in my neck of the woods (Switzerland), education material from the police indicates that most viewers of child pornography are neither paedophiles nor child molesters, they just get a kick out of the forbidden and are not usually at risk of becoming molesters themselves.

      Again, let me repeat that I think child pornography is Not A Good Thing (tm), that I hate just about nothing more than seeing a child suffer unnecessarily and that I have never commited a sexual offense in my life. So I'm not some predator trying to push his agenda here. But it really seems to me that the general view on the child pornography issue is built largely on facts that have been shown to be mostly untrue. It also seems to me that this view is dangerously easy for the powers that be to use for their own purposes. You know. "Think of the children". Or "'Child pornography' is the root password for the constitution". I think you could even go as far as to say that the damage to society caused from that is way bigger than the damage caused by some idiot having pornographic pictures of 12-year-olds from the 1970s on his computer.

      I'm not saying "repeal child pornography laws". That co

    19. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >At 15 I was attracted to women in their 30s and 40s, it's not impossible...
      Ah, your friend's mom eh? ;-)

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    20. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 1

      With your line of reasoning, we can't decide for a 14 year old if he is responsible enough to drink a bottle of vodka. Minors can be irresponsible and immature. It's up to us to look after them and make sure they don't do something silly that they may regret (or may not even live to regret) for the rest of their lives.

      Sure there are people in the world that are over 18 and are still not mature enough to vote, drink, drive or whatever and similarly there are probably lots of 16 year olds that could drink, drive and vote responsibly but we still need to protect minors from themselves and adults. It is a bit of a grey area and there are many ludicrous examples where the law is misused but not having anything in place to protect minors is asking for (more) trouble.

    21. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by bky1701 · · Score: 1
      Well, if they picked up a sniper rifle and killed someone we'd definitely consider them responsible for their decisions
      No, no, no, no, no. That's where you blame video games, but still toss them in jail. I know, it doesn't make much sense. ;)
    22. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by master_p · · Score: 1

      "Why would a sixteen-year-old find a forty-year-old-woman attractive?"

      Because older women have a sensuality that younger women lack. That's why we have movies like "the Graduate" and "Cocktail" where young men are seduced by older women.

      The whole way USA deals with sex is absurd. The most natural of human functions is considered the most sinful. 16 year olds are at the height of their sexual drive, yet they are not even allowed to look at a magazine of naked women. Really crazy stuff...

    23. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      can understand cigarettes or alcohol, but it's illegal to be curious now?

      And to think or reproduce with those that your parents/government don't approve of.

    24. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Children under 18 are not considered old enough to make the decision to appear in porn. So sure, at 16, it's perfectly reasonable to be attracted to girls his age. But supporting those girls as they start a pornography career (under the influence of others) is what's wrong!

      Yet Britney Spears is o.k.?

    25. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      You can say that some 14 year old can't make an informed decision- maybe they can't, I can't speak for them and nether can you. But I can say that it's certainly the lesser of evils.

      You also don't know if someone selling a kidney makes an informed decision or not. The reason why selling kidneys is prohibited in some (most) countries is because sometimes people are not in a position to 'decide this for themselves'. If you want to go into prostitution, wait until you're old enough. Imho this is a small price to pay to avoid others being forced into it at a time when their person is still being formed.

    26. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      If you want to be taken seriously you might consider that there's a small bit of continuum between a 16 year old girl letting her boyfriend take a nude photo of her and "...supporting those girls as they start a pornography career (under the influence of others)...". Your argument strays outside of reality at this point.

      Virg

    27. Re:Even if it WAS intentional.. by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      It's a pretty well known fact nowadays that the lion share of people who get caught with child porn on their computers downloaded it off various filesharing networks or traded it with other "collectors".

            Some very good points. However, the idealistic scenario of historical child porn being shared via P2P networks and causing no harm is unrealistic. There is a great deal of risk in being involved with child porn, and those "downloads" were to people who had child porn to "upload". In other words, to have some skin in it so to speak, but not entirely their own.

            I read of sex offenders being busted fairly frequently, and they almost always were taking pictures of the kids. Just for themselves? One can always argue it, but it's what it takes for them to gain entrance to other "collectors".

            I do agree that the child porn clubs weren't selling it, it's not what they're in it for, that's why I included trading.

        rd

  39. US Justice sodomizing US Citizens illegal? by Maddog787 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yes, but they are the biggest rape artist! They rape people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness any time any way. Now that's an artist.

  40. Technology Terrorism by sauge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just think of what terrorists could do with this sort of reaction?

    Key people could be coerced or exploited simply out of fear of what the American judicial system would do should they be reported about stuff they don't even know about. I will readily admit in the gigabytes and gigabytes of data on my hard drives(s) there are some directories I have never been in - and I am a friggin programmer.

    Huge swaths of people could be put through the grinder by so many "save the children" politician prosecutors that finally it would reach a point where people either ignore child porn or become disillusioned with the judicial system distressing innocents. Either way it is hard to support and trust such a government.

    The idea of "don't help the man, all he will do is fuck you over for some shit you didn't do" and "so much for good intentions" will build up year over year throughout the population. Already there is an incredible distrust in government regarding taxes and intelligence gathering. What happens to our society when we begin to distrust law enforcement and the judicial system - become like east L.A.?

    This kind of nonsense with unfriendly people in other countries could in quite a quiet manner - damage the society and fabric of the United States.

    1. Re:Technology Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What happens to our society when we begin to distrust law enforcement and the judicial system...."

      I already distrust both intensely. I know that "crime" pays. Crime and disease are the biggest domestic industry here in the Police States of Amerika. Crime pays mostly the government and not the victims or the criminals. Ordinary people are relatively unable to excercise their rights when they are prosecuted by government or law enforcement. In fact, all of the bullies that I knew in school tyhat managed to avoid a criminal record eneded up working in one way or another for law enforcement. Hopefully when enough people or families are screwed by the government they will stand up and give the government the boot.

      Make no mistake about it, the government is no friend nor does it look after the interests of the American people. If fact, we Americans are mere chattle as far as the government and most Fortune 500 companies are concerned. We are the chickens, hogs, turkeys, goats, and cattle. The government and companies are not interested in our wellbeing but only in what they can extract from us. Yes, I know that there are social programs that help some of the needy. However farmers tend to take care of their livestock when the livestock is sick. However when it is economically unfeasable to take care of such livestock, it is usually destroyed. The same goes for American citizens. When it becomes economically or diplomatically unfeasable for the government to respect the rights of an American citizen, then those rights are discarded. Case in point are the two border patrol agents who will be spending the next 8 years of their lives in prison for shooting a Mexican drug trafficker in the butt when he was bringing drugs into the country. The Mexican drug smuggler was given immunity for his testimony against the American agents. Another case in point is the star of a reality TV series "Dog the Bounty Hunter." The American government wanted to hand him over to the Mexican government because he captured a wanted serial rapist who fled to Mexico. This serial rapist happens to be an heir to Max Factor. It boils down to winning, truth be damned. So much for justice.

      Since it was stated by some forensic analyst that there has been no report case of kiddy porn being spread by malicous software, maybe some enterprising programmer will come up with a program to do exactly this to judges, politicians, police officers, and corporate executives computers and report them to the authorities. Then again, maybe all that would need to be written is a program that checks for and reports kiddy porn already on the computer. If such a program is written, I wonder how many more pedophiles like Mark Foley will be found in high places.

      The types of attitudes and corruption are not only confined to the Republican party, but it is also prevalent within the Democratic party as well. I encourage everyone who reads this to stop voting for Republicans and Democrats and vote for members of the alternative parties. I know that there are many kooks in the parties, but there are also some that have very good ideas and intentions. Another idea would be to change things so that ALL congress members will be elected or re-elected in the same election cycle. This will ensure that the toilet that is now Washington, D.C. could be thoroughly flushed in a single election cycle.

    2. Re:Technology Terrorism by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      If fact, we Americans are mere chattle as far as the government and most Fortune 500 companies are concerned.

      I believe the term is "Human Resources".

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
  41. No Accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You simply cannot hold someone responsible for what is on their computer, especialy their browser cache. It's simple to defend most cases. When it comes time to defend a porn on computer case:

    1) Wipe a computer, overwriting the HD several times.
    2) Install a new OS - it could be Windows, Mac, Linux.
    3) Ask the prosecutor to have it inspected by his forensics experts.
    4) Get the computer back from the prosecutor with a clean bill of health - only have it handled at that point by the court with a clear chain of custody.
    5) Have the computer delivered to the trial.
    6) Have the judge or prosecutor go to an "innocent" website that's been crafted to defend the case.
    7) On that website display some innocent content - maybe a news article on the case with some embedded links.
    8) On that very same site, place hardcore porn images in 1x1 images - define this image size in the HTML as 1x1 but leave the image the regular size so they don't show on the page but hit the browser cache.
    9) Also create some on-mouse over actions that load hidden frames on the page which go to hardcore sites - the sites with the images in the page.
    10) After the judge or prosecutor finishes loading the page and mousing over a few links ask the court to hand the computer over to the prosecutors forensics experts.
    11) They will find porn on the computer and proof that the judge or prosecutor liked a few of the images because they loaded them multiple times.

    This works in all browsers! Linux aint going to save anyone from this. Of course this same stunt could be used for evil, say to frame neighbors, co-workers, police officers, etc. The problem is, every computing environment is too open. All computers, even those locked behind multiple firewalls, anti-spyware, and anti-virus programs should be considered public terminals in the eye of the law. Unless there's video-tape of the perp in action or a confession no one can be held accountable for what's on the HD- it's just that simple!

    1. Re:No Accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Browse with Links! The only Way To Be Sure! (TM)

    2. Re:No Accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right.. do all that when they've come knocking on your door with guns pointing at you, and before they confiscate your computer.

    3. Re:No Accountability by WilliamTS99 · · Score: 1

      I think you may have missed the point. This would be done for the trial, not when they are exercising a search warrant.

  42. Sex offender label... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... priceless

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  43. -1, Troll by achurch · · Score: 1

    And yet I feed it anyway . . .

    Ignorance or uneducated? You're son is on the computer in the den collecting child porn.

    Perhaps you missed these paragraph from The Fine Article (emphasis added):

    "When they asked me have you ever looked up or uploaded or downloaded erotic images of minors, I was just taken aback and . . . I said, 'No,'" says Matthew.

    Nevertheless, Matthew did have an embarrassing confession. He had been sneaking peaks at adult erotic photos on the family computer.
    Despite the positive polygraphs and psychiatric exams, the district attorney pressed on. So the Bandys and their attorney tackled the most difficult question on the table. If Matthew didn't put the pictures on the computer, how did they get there?

    Kindly refrain from perpetuating the kind of insanity this kid has had to go through.

  44. Lower the bar far enough.... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    and everyone becomes a criminal. Criminals have fewer rights then 'citizens', and are easier to monitor and control.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Lower the bar far enough.... by QuasiEvil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No need to lower it. I'd be willing to bet that nearly all of us break a half dozen laws or more each day. Just thinking about it, I can come up with about 10 infractions for me today, and those are of laws I know about. Most are of crap no sane law enforcement officer would ever do anything about, but the point is they're still on the books and they could, at any moment, decide to enforce them.

      That's one of the problems with the US today (and I'd bet many other nations) - we pass *fuckloads* of laws that are then never revisited, never repealed, but sitting out there awaiting enforcement if they can't pin anything else on you. There's no way that the citizenry could possibly know all of the laws and be sure they're abiding by them all, thus we need to streamline and simplify.

      I'd suggest starting with all laws having a 10 year sunset clause and a constitutional provision against omnibus renewals. That'd be a good start. If it's not important enough that it can be revisited every 10 years, then we should really question if it needs to be a law.

    2. Re:Lower the bar far enough.... by Dameian · · Score: 1

      Well, at the very least that would give the legislators something to do, because by the looks of this, they must just be bored and haven't anything important to do.

    3. Re:Lower the bar far enough.... by krebcycle · · Score: 1

      This is impossible. The sheer number of useful laws out there would cause massive backlog as we try to go through them. You'd lock up the legislature just trying to validate old laws; nothing would ever happen again. Zoning laws that keep sewage treatment systems out of your backyard, all the varieties of environmental protection laws, corporate control laws, the list is immense. Unless you're a true anarchist, even a hard core libertarian would after long reflection and study of law would have trouble swallowing this.

    4. Re:Lower the bar far enough.... by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No need to lower it. I'd be willing to bet that nearly all of us break a half dozen laws or more each day. Just thinking about it, I can come up with about 10 infractions for me today, and those are of laws I know about. Most are of crap no sane law enforcement officer would ever do anything about, but the point is they're still on the books and they could, at any moment, decide to enforce them.

      And this is my big argument against surveillance.

      Often the question is asked: if you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?

      This ignores an entire category of people. What if you have done something wrong?

      I smoke drugs with friends (occasionally), I have had sex with people (my age) when it was illegal for us to, I have consumed alcohol while under the legal drinking age, and I have cracked DVDs that I've bought to watch them. I've idled my car for longer than 5 minutes (to charge my battery), I've watched a torrent download, and I've played music at a party after 11pm.

      As a potential criminal, I appreciate the fact that I can run from my crimes, and not get caught. There are far too many moralists and politicians to create a legal system that is just - or at least just enough that surveillance is safe and right to deploy.

      My $0.02.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  45. Remember Kids by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nudity and sex are Evil, but blowing someone up because they live near someone we think is bad is Good.

    All research on the subject says quite clearly that seeing sex and nudity isn't harmful to kids. Until very very recently, most children were conceived while their siblings were in the same room. The vast majority of children in the world see their first female breast within about 5 minutes of birth. Kids don't make a big deal about it, it's adults for whom its a big deal. Laws against showing porn to minors are really to protect adults from the idea that their kids might understand sex, not to protect kids.

    The problem is that lots of people who understand these things, but no one has the balls to stand up and say in a political campaign that they're fine with children seeing adults and other children naked.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Remember Kids by complete+loony · · Score: 1
      "... seeing sex and nudity isn't harmful to kids"
      Until you walk in on your parents. shudder.

      Though judging from my High School, it can certainly give you something interesting to talk about.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    2. Re:Remember Kids by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    3. Re:Remember Kids by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Not only that. Problem is that for most of people, sex is so big personal tabu, that they will deny ANYTHING what they do everyday just to be saved from embarasment. For most people, sex comes with very strong feelings - even when you are not in love - so...

      Personally I think that laws about sex should be written by sexually healthy people, who doesn't have some strong pain about not having/not liking sex because of his wife/her husband or something. They will want to be pure and suffer away, and will drag society together with them, because they don't want to admit, that they can't get a good sex because of shame/age/tirness/other problems.

      (Yeeh, what a crap sentence, but I hope you'll understand what I said)

      If you will check out which makes such laws and such judgments,
      you will see people in their 50-ties, very conservative, maybe with one children, etc.

      People with good sexual life would do a harder check on facts before labeling this boy a sex offender.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  46. Interview with the District Attorney in the case by GnomeCarousel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2791529&page=1 is an interview with the DA of this case.
    Very interesting read.

    Quote:

    "JIM AVILA: So there was a huge amount of evidence that in fact, this kid was not involved in a sex crime. And yet, your office and
    you yourself continue to believe and put him through two years of hell, because you continue to believe despite lie detector
    tests, court psychiatrist reports, a report from the computer expert who said it could have come from anywhere...you
    continue to say..."

    NDREW THOMAS: (Overlap) Well...

    JIM AVILA: ...that he did it.

    ANDREW THOMAS: Well, I...again, I...I'm not sure that that's totally right. But you gotta...

    JIM AVILA: (Overlap) Halfway right?
    "

    --
    Round and round we go.
  47. American == USA citizen by gvc · · Score: 4, Informative

    We Canadians take "American" to mean a citizen of the USA; not of Canada, Mexico, Brazil or Argentina.

    1. Re:American == USA citizen by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Wait... cuba or mexico?

      --
      You mad
    2. Re:American == USA citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We Canadians take "American" to mean a citizen of the USA; not of Canada, Mexico, Brazil or Argentina.

      You can take it any way you want, including up the ass, but American properly refers to any citizen of North, Central or South America.

    3. Re:American == USA citizen by Snarfangel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>We Canadians take "American" to mean a citizen of the USA; not of Canada, Mexico, Brazil or Argentina.

      You can take it any way you want, including up the ass, but American properly refers to any citizen of North, Central or South America.


      Actually, in Spanish it is either americano or americana, and in Portuguese it is americano as well. Since this covers the vast majority of those south of the border (except for Belize, IIRC), and since Canadians don't care, we can call Americans "Americans," Canadians "Canadians," and everyone else Americanos.

      --
      This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
    4. Re:American == USA citizen by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      We Canadians take "American" to mean a citizen of the USA; not of Canada, Mexico, Brazil or Argentina.

      Where a citizen of Mexico may refer to both US and Canadian citizens as being "North Americans". It's a little more polite than assuming an english speaker is from the US, but a little strange in the fact that we are all part of North America.

      I would like it if we all accept the fact that we share a Continent, but there is a language difference.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    5. Re:American == USA citizen by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      More to the point, do any other countries in the Americas actually have "America" in their name?

      Calling us "United Statesians" or the like is just dumb. It'd be like calling Chinese people "People's Republicans".

      I'm fairly sensitive to other cultures and such (hell, for an American, I'm way, crazy, SUPER sensitive) but this is just ridiculous. It sounds like something that those Pan-America, there-are-no-borders-cuz-it's-ALL-(Mexico|Moderniz ed, unified "Native" state) jackasses would have come up with.

    6. Re:American == USA citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a European, I have to say: We discovered it, America is ours, and we decide what it should be called. What you colonials think about this issue is completely irrelevant.

  48. Windows: Get out of jail free card by jlarocco · · Score: 0

    Does this work with other stuff? Say... MP3s?

    I don't understand how he's getting off. At the very least, he should be charged with facilitating kiddie porn distribution. If I get caught with a bunch of drugs in my apartment, I can't just say "I don't lock the door so some guy hides his drugs here."

    Does a Windows machine somehow release you from any responsibility? I might have to install a copy somewhere, just in case.

    1. Re:Windows: Get out of jail free card by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1
      If I get caught with a bunch of drugs in my apartment, I can't just say "I don't lock the door so some guy hides his drugs here."

      Maybe you could if 90% of the locks in the world couldn't be reliably locked by about 75% of their owners.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Windows: Get out of jail free card by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      Hey, what if you were faced with this predicament? Should I go around advocating your imprisonment or criminalization?

    3. Re:Windows: Get out of jail free card by jlarocco · · Score: 1
      Hey, what if you were faced with this predicament? Should I go around advocating your imprisonment or criminalization?

      Yes.

    4. Re:Windows: Get out of jail free card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Ever think of being a judge? I think a lot of people would love to have you as the next supreme court justice.

      Just to clarify this:
      failure to secure your computer, firewall, spyware, etc. deserves years of jail time and placement on the s.o. registry?

      Go American justice.

    5. Re:Windows: Get out of jail free card by Ciarang · · Score: 1

      What's the betting you'd change your tune if someone decided to plant "a bunch of drugs" in your apartment?

  49. Just unplug by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most people have very little reason to be connected to the internet all the time, or have their computer on all the time. Save the environment: turn off that computer!

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  50. You are completely wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's simply not true. Your instructor is full of shit. It would be trivial to write a small app that would remain memory resident and would periodically launch popups containing illicit content downloaded from various dubious web servers well outside US jurisdiction. The app could be easily installed without the users knowledge using any number of IE exploits. If you can't see this, then please do the rest of us a favor and get out of computer forensics. Your ignorance is dangerous and, as a forensics technician, it could cost people their freedom and their good name.

  51. Best reason NOT to get a Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they find your kiddypr0n collection, you won't have malware as an excuse.

  52. They're still a young country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Remember, the US is still a very young nation. It's history as a country only goes back 350 years or so. Even then, present American culture only really took off after World War II. So it hasn't even been 70 years since what we consider "American society" took root. Compared to the history of even just European society, for instance, that's virtually nothing.

    So it's no wonder that they still have an aversion to boobies. It's something they'll grow out of, likely once the first generation of people exposed to the Internet for virtually their entire lives start to become politicians and hold office. They'll realize that a bouncy pair of titties are a wonderous sight, and some vulva now and then is good for the health.

    1. Re:They're still a young country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They'll realize that a bouncy pair of titties are a wonderous sight, and some vulva now and then is good for the health.

      I can think of at least two US Presidents from the 20th century who clearly thought that.

  53. Family computer security: priority #1 by feranick · · Score: 1

    I hope this story will teach people that security is the number one thing they should worry about when the buy a computer. Flashy interfaces, cool programs must come later in the scale of priorities. Be conscious regarding the OS you are running is VERY important. Windows is known to be very unreliable if patches are not applied. Mac and Linux are inherently more secure, but could also be vulnerable if not patched. So as a parent, I would start thinking more about the instrument I am allowing my kids to use. Is the computer safely patched? Do safer programs exist? Once parents will take personal care in making sure their PCs will be safe, then they could educate their kids to do so, as well as good Internet practices. If you expect your computer to be safe at all times without doing nothing to it, well, you are ingenuous, and waiting for troubles. Did anybody look at how well secured Matt's computer was? In other words, would leave your kid drive the family car if you knew the brakes were not working? Matt's story reminds me of that.

  54. My attitude, who gives a damn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was working at compusa I would find kiddie porn on people's computers on a regular basis, well.. every few weeks being "regular." Some of it was quite disturbing, in a way I've become callous towards the images like seeing the goatse man. It doesn't hurt my eyes anymore. I would just delete the offending images, no questions asked, and it's not like any of the customers (would) ever complain about their kiddy porn gone missing. I figured why bother myself with the trouble of ratting someone out, that's a lot of energy that I could use on some other activity in life. Dealing with cops, bosses, asking questions, filling out paper work.. Fuck it. Had compusa been offering a bounty on finding kiddie porn, maybe I would have different attitude, but probably not.. there's enough criminals in this country, the local sex offender list is a mile long and 2 million people in u.s. prisons at any given time.. We know people on average, in this country, are corrupt or generally fucked up somehow, Why bother going through a drawn out judicial process to find out what we already know?

  55. Correct me if I'm wrong by Zorque · · Score: 1

    But couldn't one equate fighting porn with ruining lives?

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by QuasiEvil · · Score: 1

      >But couldn't one equate fighting porn with ruining lives?

      Would certainly ruin my life. I'm married - porn is the only lovin' I get. :)

  56. mod parent up! by Bananatree3 · · Score: 1
    Arizona just undermined itself. Be ridiculous with labels, and you end up only labeling yourself

    well said!

  57. Simpler that this... by feranick · · Score: 1

    ... how about applying all the necessary patches to your PC? How many people runs their computer "stock" which means totally unpatched? What if Matt's computer was still running Win XP SP1, with no patches? Why everybody is saying: "it could happen to you!" and not instead saying: "how safely patched was Matt's computer?". Win XP is not built safely, but I know lot's of people that use it with no spyware properly. Properly patched PCs, safer browsers, some anti-virus-spyware, firewalls, are all tools available (most of them free) to make your internet experience safer. Saying that it could happen to you, is very irresponsible. It's like saying: you could die in the car because cars have no airbags, belts, etc. Sorry, cars have these tools. You're irresponsible if you don't use them and more irresponsible as a parent if you don't force your kids to do the same.

  58. Totally fucking agree by QuasiEvil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "OMG little Johnny saw a boobie! Armageddon is upon us!"

    We crazy-ass Americans have such bizarre hangups about sex... Jesus, folks, get over it. We all think about it, most of us do it fairly often (/.ers excepted, especially those of us old married /.ers like myself), and it's just stupid to be so repressed about the whole deal.

    The liquor laws piss me off enough (whaddaya mean it's a dry county?), but all the puritanical sexually-repressive moral crap that's in law has just got to go.

    1. Re:Totally fucking agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The liquor laws piss me off enough (whaddaya mean it's a dry county?), but all the puritanical sexually-repressive moral crap that's in law has just got to go.

      Those in American society who tend to push the "puritanical sexually-repressive moral crap" are often the most perverse, sick motherfuckers out there. Sure, they go to church every Sunday, and they claim to want to "protect the children". But in reality they tend to have some of the most twisted minds, only taking a stance against their actual beliefs in some vain attempt to bring a degree of normality to their otherwise sick existence.

      I went to college with a guy from Kansas. We all considered him to be disgusting due to some of the things he'd do. One time, he ate carrot sticks out of a girl's ass. While she was suffering from diarrhea. But then one day he read a newspaper article about some of the "upstanding citizens" from his hometown getting caught doing some rather dirty things with some farm animals. Reading the story actually made him thrown up onto his monitor and keyboard. Apparently he'd dated their daughter for several years without ever even holding her hand, and had gone to church with them every Sunday for that timespan. They were some of the most devout, upstanding, prudent people he'd ever met, and he was completely surprised and disgusted when their true nature came out.

    2. Re:Totally fucking agree by faolan_devyn_aodfin · · Score: 1

      It's all insane. Speaking as an American, most Americans take it too far. This right-wing puritan bullshit has to stop, but as long as the Midwest and South have their balls on the Senate and House this will not stop. Perhaps we should pass laws the repeal government compensation for farmers. That'll shut them hicks up and and make them get off their lazy asses and work.

      --
      Pagan? Geek? Check out #paganism on Freenode IRC
    3. Re:Totally fucking agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just made all that up then. What are you, starved of attention?

    4. Re:Totally fucking agree by Askmum · · Score: 1

      Not just about sex. It last struck to me that any possibly offending word is now beeped out in American TV broadcasts.
      "Oh my god! The dog just [beeped] on the carpet!"
      "When that happens, the [beep] hits the fan."

      And what's worse, it's apparently not enough that they do it in America, it seems that if they distribute it, the beeps are already in so we here in depraved and heinous Europe are also stuck with this crap.

      Face it, the moral standards of whoever is in charge over there just don't add up.

  59. Support Matt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let us rally behind Matt, he is our fellow slashdotter!

  60. The solution to this is simple and inevitable by viewtouch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The solution to this problem, and to virtually all of the problems that are associated with computer ownership, is simple and inevitable. Do away with the personal computer.

    For most people it is completely unnecessary. For most people all they need is a graphical display terminal with a rich user interface environment that is attached to the Internet and software which is streamed at them, whether in a browser or, as in the case of X, served up to their graphical display terminal.

    No hard drive to worry about, nothing police can find in your possession to investigate, charge, prosecute and punish you for, no viruses, no spyware, no adware, no trojan software.

    Nobody every got in trouble for watching the most raw, stimulating, raunchy porn on TV and nobody will ever get in trouble for watching what is streamed to their graphics display terminal. After its viewed it just goes right off into the great void. Any software that the average person needs in the future will be streamed directly to their graphics display terminal which is connected directly to the Internet without the need for a local operating system, storage, massive bank of RAM or local copies of application programs.

    Users can go anywhere in the world, walk up to any graphics display terminal and have the same software experience regardless of who they are, where they are. No need to download songs or movies, just stream them right to you, just like Television. You don't need a PC to have a TV, you don't need a PC to have a phone, you don't need a PC to receive streaming software. You just need a graphical display terminal. No mess, no fuss. The PC, for the average person, is an unnecessary, expendible component of the software experience in the era of ubiquitous access to the Internet and versatile graphical display terminals.

    1. Re:The solution to this is simple and inevitable by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you were joking or not, but that solves nothing.

      Second Life is very much like that world you describe. Everything is on the server, even the objects I create. My computer is merely a viewer.

      One can still infringe on copyright, possess kiddy porn, have illegal self-replicating grid attacking objects, and various other illegal things in Second Life.

      A judge isn't going to give one whit whether the data is stored on some server somewhere or if it's on a hard disk in your living room. If it's in your account, it's still possession, it's still under your control and at your disposal.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:The solution to this is simple and inevitable by viewtouch · · Score: 1

      You listen to the radio programs streamed at you; how can you be guilty of what you listen to, how can you possess what you listen to, how can you violate a copyright by listening to what is streamed to you? How can you have 'illegal self-replicating gridd attacking objects by listening to the radio? How can a judge convict you of a crime for what you listen to on the radio? You need to explain yourself because software is no different than a radio broadcast if it's streamed at your viewer. And, no, it's no joke. This is the way that the delivery of software is moving, surely you can see...

    3. Re:The solution to this is simple and inevitable by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Because you still have posession of virtual assets. An inventory, a file system of sorts, on the server.

      To your streaming point, I did hear a judge recently ruled that merely passing copyright infringing traffic through a router was a type of infringement. I forget what country that was in. Wasn't the USA.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:The solution to this is simple and inevitable by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The majority of users have little grasps on the working of an OS, but there are many non-streaming things they want to do with their PC, like chatting, online-banking or editing images taking with the digital camera. They want to build web pages and they want to send email. If that wasn't true how would you explain myspace, all these email viruses and chain mails?

    5. Re:The solution to this is simple and inevitable by viewtouch · · Score: 1

      A browser does not require a PC with an OS, but only a display terminal, i.e., one with an X server (software that delivers the display and input components of remote applications to you) and network link to applications (in this case browsers) already running somewhere else. Then you can do banking and enjoy the world wide web without a PC or local storage. Chatting is available via any of several plug-ins for the Firefox browser.

      Here's a $69 printer that lets you edit and print your photos without a PC. http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail~dpno~6048 11~name~Photosmart+8050+Photo+Inkjet+Printer~mfg~Q 6351A%23ABA.asp

      Here's a live CD that turns your Windows computer into an X terminal.
      http://xlivecd.indiana.edu/

      Here's the howto that turns any PC into a network display terminal, and X server. When this is running no use will be made of the hard drive. It will also work if there is no hard drive in the system. It will also work if there is no operating system installed on the computer.

          Here, look at this... http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7499590573.html

    6. Re:The solution to this is simple and inevitable by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Ok, so you have a browser, but then you are hardly streaming content - the user selects their websites and while there is nothing on the harddrive (assuming there is no browser cache) there are still logs at the provider side. So you can still be prosecuted for going to illegal websites, and there is still an incentive for law enforcement to monitor everybody. The whole plugin-stuff allows hacking, too - you can use prepared plugins to monitor the users actions (while online banking for example). Or use any other hole in the browser.

      As for the photo stuff - people want to send their photographs to other users.

      Oh and online games, people use computers for gaming.

    7. Re:The solution to this is simple and inevitable by viewtouch · · Score: 1

      You're looking at one particular tree and I'm looking at the forest.

      How many people have been arrested for playing a game on a game console? There are several hundred million such consoles out there.

      Does it really take a PC to send a photograph to someone? No. Can you send a picture to someone over the Internet if you have a graphic display terminal instead of a PC? Yes.

      Send me a link, if you would, to any report you can find of someone being prosecuted for using a terminal to browse an 'illegal website'. And another link, please, of how law enforcement is monitoring 'everybody' who uses terminals. You talk about these things as if they are actually happening and I would like to know if you have any examples at all of these things happening or if you are just making them up.

    8. Re:The solution to this is simple and inevitable by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Well a quick google search gives these results - police using credit card logs to identify people who were viewing child porn:

      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/09/18 33244

      http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/03/14/landslide -porn060314.html

      A terminal which is sophisticated enough to allow online-purchases would allow to view illegal websites in the same manner, so I fail to see what your solution actually accomplishes. Admittedly I know of no case of law enforcement monitoring people who use terminals, considering there are almost no people who use these in a home setting that seems irrelevant.

      Nobody has been arrested for playing on a console, but there are many people who play games on PCs. Sure theoretically they could buy some special printer, use some special graphics display, buy a console and so on. You have a snowballs chance in hell in actually getting anyone to go to that trouble.

      Does it really take a PC to send a photograph to someone? No.

      Yes.

      Can you send a picture to someone over the Internet if you have a graphic display terminal instead of a PC? Yes.

      No.

      I know, sure you can do anything with a graphics terminal. As long as that terminal has a USB port, allows you to upload and download things and store them somewhere (e.g. to your mp3 player). As long as that terminal is in fact indistinguishable from a PC. Apart from having no local drive on which the user could store his photographs, his emails and his mp3s.

      After all this, I'm really unclear now what you are trying to do? Which specific problem would actually be solved by your proposal, and how would you convince people to go for your solution?

  61. if his computer were being used as a proxy... by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the case be that his ip would be recorded as visiting the offending yahoo site but the actual file would only reside on the hard drive of the computer that is using him as a proxy?

    1. Re:if his computer were being used as a proxy... by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Because, naturally, the hacker knowing about the child porn laws, would store his collection on his own computer.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  62. Disgusting. by Jartan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This kind of thing makes me want to vomit. Leave aside all the technical stuff for once. Personally I would really like to know what the hell is going on with the judges in these court rooms? I'll admit to far too much ignorance on the powers of a judge but surely they have some? Don't they have SOME sort of book to throw at these low life prosecutors?

    1. Re:Disgusting. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Regarding the kid, to be honest, spyware and adware probably didn't put that porn on his computer. Most likely he did.

      On the other hand, I think it raises enough of a reasonable doubt to make a conviction wrong.

      I also think it's kinda wrong that kids can be charged with those sorts of crimes. Why should it be a crime to want to see porn of your own age group? It'd be a different matter if he was producing the stuff, but simply downloading it...

      Reminds me of the kid charged with kiddy porn because she uploaded her own picture. The system is kinda fucked up when it comes to this stuff.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Disgusting. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No, because many prosecutors become Judges.

      Only the fool thinks anything is fair inside the judicial system.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Disgusting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      >Only the fool thinks anything is fair inside the judicial system.

      This opinion is more widely held by those who are, to some degree, guilty.

    4. Re:Disgusting. by Calydor · · Score: 1
      They do, but it's really just a leaflet.

      A really thin one.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  63. Law vs. Reason... by akohler · · Score: 2, Insightful
    where's the line?

    We've already gone down the "slippery slope" of making analogies between Real Life and Digital Life, and trying to make them legal precedent. I think we all know that, although there are parallels, the analogy is not usually that direct.

    Example 1: in the case where you've locked your door, someone breaks into your house and injures themselves when leaving by slipping on your icy walk, and then sues you because they injured themselves on your property. Jury finds that you should have shoveled your walk. Yes, some juries have actually awarded money to burglars in personal injury suits.

    Example 2: Same scenario, but you left your door unlocked. Jury finds that you should have locked your door.

    Example 3: Kids from next door walk into your yard when you're not home, fall into your swimming pool and drown. Jury finds that you should have put up a fence.

    Example 4: Neighbor climbs your fence, ignores your no tresspassing sign, and goes ice-skating on your pond, then falls through the ice and dies. The parents sue you. They lose. Jury decides that your fence and sign were enough to tell a reasonable person that they shouldn't have been there.

    An analogy in the Digital World that many people have been drawing lately is Open Wi-Fi. (Which I agree with, BTW.) This says that Wi-Fi piggy-backing should be legal because if you don't want people using it, you can secure it, put up a digital "No Tresspassing" sign, etc.

    Is there an analogy here? If your computer isn't secured, according to the standards of a "reasonable" person? I think it depends on who these "reasonable" people are. Does the average person know how to secure their computer at a bare minimum? Probably not. But are average people reasonable?

    I don't know how to fix my car. But I, and I would presume other reasonable people, as well, know that your car should be checked regularly to make sure that it is in safe driving condition. I also know that I'm supposed to get regular checkups to make sure that I'm healthy.

    If I got sick from something at work, didn't go to the doctor for 6 years, found out 6 years later that I was sick and tried to sue my job, the court, at least in my state, I wouldn't get anything. Why? Because the statute of limitations says that I have 2 years from the date that I got sick OR 2 years from the time that a "reasonable person" in the same situation should have known that they were sick. Because reasonable people are supposed to go to the doctor on a regular, I would be unreasonable for waiting 6 years.

    Should reasonable people have their computers checked for malware? Yes they should.

    --
    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Gandhi
    1. Re:Law vs. Reason... by akohler · · Score: 1

      BTW, I would like to point out that I am in no way advocating that the poor kid be labeled "a sex offender for life".

      WARNING: Potentially controversial opinion follows.

      I would suggest that we start treating these cases the way we treat "kid caught smoking joint", etc. Youthful Offender cases and slap the kid with a temporary, provisional charge that will be wiped clean after he completes a mandatory rehabilitation program. Not for porn, but for online security and responsibility. Perhaps mandate that he and his family attend a class on how to keep your patches up to date, browse "safely", etc. People should learn from mistakes, and we, as a society, should attempt to remedy ignorance rather than punish people for it.

      --
      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Gandhi
    2. Re:Law vs. Reason... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ---An analogy in the Digital World that many people have been drawing lately is Open Wi-Fi. (Which I agree with, BTW.) This says that Wi-Fi piggy-backing should be legal because if you don't want people using it, you can secure it, put up a digital "No Tresspassing" sign, etc.

      WiFi concerning 2.4 GHz should be unmoderated, along with laws concerning "no listening". It should be legal for me, under part 15, to continually spit out interference because it is UNLICENSED. If you want a quiet channel, go buy your own. If you have an encrypted channel, I should have the right to decrypt the data, and transmit "encrypted" so that you understand.

      When it comes to encryption, I dont use it on WEP or WPA. It's open, spitting out 5 watts. Why over the limit? Im licensed with amateur radio. I have part 97 on my side.

      ---Is there an analogy here? If your computer isn't secured, according to the standards of a "reasonable" person? I think it depends on who these "reasonable" people are. Does the average person know how to secure their computer at a bare minimum? Probably not. But are average people reasonable?

      Reasonable: If you squirt RF over unlicensed band, you had better be sure what you're communicating with. If you want WPA with VPN, thats fine. But prepare for it to be cracked into. If you want security, use wires.

      ---Should reasonable people have their computers checked for malware? Yes they should.

      Reasonable people woudnt be using browsers that could become infected, nor should the computers run executable code unless directly instructed by the person. Then again, using a secure OS is a part of that, but Windows is reasonable because many people use it.

      --
  64. Re:Interview with the District Attorney in the cas by Nutty_Irishman · · Score: 1

    The DA sounds as over-zealous as the Duke Rape DA. Perhaps that DA might be trotting down the same path as Nifong: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/61-01152007 -1053408.html

  65. Moral of the Story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use insecure Microsoft products => risk prosecution for child pornography.

  66. God damn 4chan by lewp · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    His family's life was turned upside-down

    For a second there I thought I got Bel-Air'd on /.

    --
    Game... blouses.
  67. Jury nullification by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Informative
    Folks who are against that kind of abuse of law: make sure to serve on a jury. If the case is something like that, I'd even be tempted to lie to get on the jury. Remember, it only takes one juror in most states to block a conviction and prosecutors are hesitant to retry in the case of a hung jury. Plus you can try to convince other jurors not to convict. In addition to judging the accused, jurors are required by quite a few state constitutions to judge the law itself.

    -b.

  68. Happens all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    If you are using Windows, the odds are good this could happen to you.

    1. Re:Happens all the time by phantomflanflinger · · Score: 1

      No, the odds are good if you're using IE and/or Outlook Express.

      --
      shin phantomflanflinger
  69. Let me tell you a lil story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    as someone that has gone through this system on this.

    Many moons ago I went out to meet this gal I met online, I knew she was under 18 but I was early 20s and stupid so I went out to meet her and I got busted as I walked in the door, tossed in jail and got a lawyer and got out on probation.

    5 years, 2 lie detector tests, 2 years of mandatory therapy, tens of thousands of dollars spent out of mine and my families pocket, 1 career, 1 fiancee all lost along the way because I never really did anything but I thought with my love whistle insetad of the head on my shoulders.

    So now I'm labeled a pure hardcore sex offender. I'm on the website here in my state, my glorious picture is up there, they put posters all around my white color suburbanite neighborhood, my neighbors who knew me couldn't believe it, the ones who didn't' saw me and pulled their kids aside like I was going to eat them alive when it was the farthest thing from the truth. I've had people spit upon my father who has a lawn business, mom who gets harrassed at her school from other teachers cause of it, my friends got hassled and dropped me like the plague. I got to see who my true friends and people were. People who were still there, still loyal, looked past my stupid mistake and realized "Hey, he did something really dumb, but he didn't rape some kid or kidnap a school bus full of girl scouts."

    So here I sit here after I got all my ducks in a row, got a consulting job because companies hire business' not people so no background check, going to school out of state because they don't require registration or signup stating that some kiddy raper is attending their school, I live in a place that's in a decent area but the county is trying to squeeze people like me out because the community thinks we are all 'horrible representations of society' or some nonsense. I had to grow up alot along the way and I learned alot about the legal and criminal system and know there are thousands upon thousands of guys like me that are out there that really won't be able to be 'themselves' for 20yrs or so until it's all cleared up in the system and maybe a pardon for the governator.

    I'm sorry for what I did to my family, to my friends, and to that lil child whom when I saw her in court I would've never done a thing to as she looked like my lil 12 yr old sister.

    Do I feel my debt to society has been repaid? You be the judge on that. I'll let you know in 10 more years.

    1. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debt to society? You are owed a debt by society.

    2. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Debt to society? You are owed a debt by society."

      If you mean society owes me nothing then all I ask of society is to stop treating those of us that have did our time, understood our punishments and crimes, and want to reenter society as citizens as all of those that have done know wrong take for granted every day.

      I for one miss having the ability to vote for elected offical, have the ability to protect my family by having a fire arm in my house, have to be monitored like i'm a walking ticking time bomb waiting for me to snatch some little girl off the street and devile her in inhumane acts. All I ask is that they stamp my letter saying "Welcome back Citizen, now behave this time OK?" and you will see a grown man break down in tears.

      Yes it means that much to me to have back what most of you have and throw away every election day. No matter how much support I throw for the candidate of my choice I can't go there and say "Thats my chosen one!" and be done with that.

      I couldn't even volunteer to reroll as an officer in the military. Nope they wouldn't take me back, I asked about being demoted down to enlisted "Come talk to me when it's off your record!" they said. "My family is over there fighting as we speak and buddies are dying as well, yet you won't let me back with a full college education yet you are taking people who can't qualify for GED's?" "You are a criminal, they aren't". I just shake my head.

      It makes me sad in many ways and I could rant on how I could get away with voting or owning a gun or many other ways around the system that are found to be completely flawed, but what's the point in defying the very system I so desperately want to rejoin?

      If you mean I still owe a debt to society, then by all means I'm more than eager to repay it. Trust me.

    3. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So now I'm labeled a pure hardcore sex offender. I'm on the website here in my state, my glorious picture is up there, they put posters all around my white color suburbanite neighborhood, my neighbors who knew me couldn't believe it, the ones who didn't' saw me and pulled their kids aside like I was going to eat them alive when it was the farthest thing from the truth. I've had people spit upon my father who has a lawn business, mom who gets harrassed at her school from other teachers cause of it, my friends got hassled and dropped me like the plague. I got to see who my true friends and people were. People who were still there, still loyal, looked past my stupid mistake and realized "Hey, he did something really dumb, but he didn't rape some kid or kidnap a school bus full of girl scouts."

      You didn't do anything wrong. You didn't do anything dumb.

      The people trying to convince you otherwise are sick - plain and simple. If it weren't for people like you, we wouldn't be here as a species. You are attracted to females in their sexual prime, and this makes you normal.

      Stay strong. Karma is real. :)

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    4. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Many moons ago I went out to meet this gal I met online, I knew she was under 18...
      This story is rather pointless without us knowing how much under 18 you thought she was. That you go on to say

      she looked like my lil 12 yr old sister
      suggests this wasn't one of those "17 years, 11 months" border cases.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't support the vigilante punishment you've been given by your community, even if you really did think she was 12. I believe that once one has served one's time, one's punishment should be over.

      Do I feel my debt to society has been repaid? You be the judge on that.
      Yeah, well, leaving it up to the convicted to decide when they've been punished enough would hardly result in an effective system of justice, now, would it? :)
    5. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Many moons ago I went out to meet this gal I met online, I knew she was under 18 but I was early 20s and stupid so I went out to meet her and I got busted as I walked in the door, tossed in jail and got a lawyer and got out on probation.

      Usually it's not illegal to just meet someone under 18. Did you state specific intentions for this meeting?
    6. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Interesting, what was their evidence? If they judged you by actions you *might* do it in future, then well, US rocks. What could I say.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    7. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      You are attracted to females in their sexual prime, and this makes you normal.

      How old was she? You seem very sure of his total innocence, so, how old was she?

      All he says for definite is "under 18". That leaves you free to assume she was 16, 17 or so; until he goes on to say that in court, she looked just like his 12 year old sister.

      Now I'm not condoning his treatment, and I definitely don't condone making the identity of currently-registered sex offenders public (and yes, I am a parent), there's just too much danger of mob justice, not to mention people who genuinely didn't do anything very bad being treated like they rape and eat babies. But this guy hasn't given us enough info for you to make that assertion; you don't know if she was a mature 17 year old or a precocious but immature 12 year old.

      Does he deserve his treatment at the hands of society? No. Do his parents and friends? Of course not. Can we say for sure that he's "normal" and their persecutors are the "sick" ones? No, not with the information we have.

    8. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Frankly I really don't care. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume she's reached puberty. Maybe I'm wrong but it isn't the impression that I got from reading his comment.

      In which case, it's up to him and her (or her and him) and everyone else (except perhaps their respective families) should fuck right off. Sex is a very personal and private thing and is no business of the state.

      I know this doesn't jive with current American mores but I'm past the point of caring. I'm just so sick of it all. :(
      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    9. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1
      All I ask is that they stamp my letter saying "Welcome back Citizen, now behave this time OK?" and you will see a grown man break down in tears.

      Considering that it's AC, I'm calling shennanigans on the whole story.

      But on the offchance it is true, you lost the fight the moment you started waiting for them to clear your name. Only you can clear your name, because it's your name and you can't get another one. If you think it's worth fighting for, then you've got to fight for it. If you have to wait for someone to give it back to you, then you'll never get it back at all, whether or not they stamp that letter.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    10. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OMG! 10 years ago, when I was in my 20s, internet just evolved around here. The most interesting part of the net was IRC and he IRC scene was quite developed here (Slovenia, Europe) at that time.

      So, I' ve met a few under-18 girls online and then met them in RL. Of course I WANTED to have sex with (most) of them, but the success rate was not all that high :-). However, 16 years old was the bottom age limitation. Younger girls were not even interesting at that age any more.

      Today of course, I find 16 years old girls being total children. They are nice to look at, but not really attractive to me. A girl in her mid 20s is a different story. On the other hand, I find some women in their mid or even late 30s sexy as hell.

      My point is, it's normal and healthy to be attracted to 16yrsold when you're 20! If both partners agree on having sex, I think there's no problem. Of course, some girls might not be ready to have sex at that age, and must not be forced to!

      All those laws were created by people, who have a real problem with sex and should go to therapy IMHO. Just look around. Typical sex offenders are priests and republicans. And they are the ones who push that kind of stupid laws. And the whole crap about not having sex before marriage? Can you imagine dating your girlfriend from say being 16, you finally marry at 20 only to find out that she's crappy in bed? You get frustrated, and then you have to live your fantasies - those, who you didn't live up when you were 16. And you turn to 16year old children when you are 30 or 40... This is crazy.

      IHMO the world would be a much better place if there were no news at 19:00 on TV. Porn at 19:00 would be a much much better alternative!

      Now, the final question. Why is it OK to expose our children to violence, crime and death? It's ok for the children to watch a body of a hanged man!!?? I found those images highly disturbing. And the most important thing - i was disposed under seeing the pictures against my will! I just opened a local news web site, and there was this freaking picture. This is ok? And having some fun and good feeling with 16years old is not?

      Anyway, why don't you just move to EU? If I was under such stress for doing nothing wrong, I'd leave!

    11. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, my second to last girlfriend was 17, 5 years younger than me ... my last gf was 22 and looked 16, hell, i'd bang a 16 year old any day if she is mature enough.

      Luckily I live on the other side of the pond so as long as it's all consentual sex, everything is good :)

    12. Re:Let me tell you a lil story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I never really did anything but I thought with my love whistle"

      LOL, you never did anything but (try to) cheat on your fiancee with some underage slut you met on the internet. Was it the first time? What would you have done if it was a real underage slut? How young were you planning to go? Your intent was immoral and illegal.

  70. Mod Parent up!!! by Asm-Coder · · Score: 1

    Where are my mod points when I need them!

  71. More quotable than Gerald Ford: Zappa by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.
    SCRUTINIZER'S POSTLUDE

    Eventually it was discovered
    That God
    Did not want us to be
    All the same
    This was
    BAD NEWS
    For the Governments of The World
    As it seemed contrary
    To the doctrine of
    Portion Controlled Servings
    Mankind must be made more uniformly
    If THE FUTURE
    Was going to work
    Various ways were sought
    To bind us all together
    But, alas SAMENESS was unenforceable
    It was about this time
    That someone
    Came up with the idea of TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
    Based on the principle that
    If we were ALL crooks
    We could at last be uniform
    To some degree
    In the eyes of THE LAW
    Shrewdly our legislators calculated
    That most people were
    Too lazy to perform a
    REAL CRIME
    So new laws were manufactured
    Making it possible for anyone
    To violate them any time of the day or night,
    And
    Once we had all broken some kind of law
    We'd all be in the same big happy club
    Right up there with the President,
    The most exalted industrialists,
    And the clerical big shots
    Of all your favorite religions
    TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION
    Was the greatest idea of its time
    And was vastly popular
    Except with those people
    Who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws,
    So, of course, they had to be TRICKED INTO IT...
    Which is one of the reasons why
    Music
    Was eventually made
    Illegal

    http://www.lyricsdomain.com/6/frank_zappa/scrutini zer_postlude.html
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:More quotable than Gerald Ford: Zappa by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Why in the world was that modded offtopic? That had everything to do with the subject at hand. Sorry it went down that way.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:More quotable than Gerald Ford: Zappa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, y'know, sometimes you're the dog; sometimes you're the fire hydrant.

    3. Re:More quotable than Gerald Ford: Zappa by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      TOTAL CRIMINALIZATION

      Otherwise known as original sin or the sin nature of man. Has worked very well for 2 millenia.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
  72. Arizona - the great state of Arizona by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why am I not surprised?

    This is where that idiot "toughest sheriff in America" operates, isn't it?

    The moron who lets prisoners in his jail live in sewage?

    Is he still alive or did somebody put a bullet in his head as he deserves?

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  73. awesome! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    I'll have to try that line of defence some time!

    "Your honour, I know that the officers who raided my house managed to find 500 kilos of cocaine, 20lbs of RDX, two surface to air missiles, and a gaggle of Tainwanese sex slaves, however, I left my door unlocked when I went to volunteer at the soup kitchen down the street. CLEARLY someone is trying to frame me!"

  74. I'm kinda divided on the subject by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    On one hand, I find it insane to charge someone with something they could not even possibly do. I'm actually waiting for hacking charges against some complete computer illiterate 'cause his computer was used as a relay.

    On the other hand I'm kinda 'happy' that the attitude of "aw heck, let's click on everything, what bad can happen" backfires on the people doing it.

    Computers are no toys, and the internet is an unsafe place. If you consider everyone but your REAL friends your enemy, you're not far off. Nobody makes you rich fast, nobody sends you a few billions of some late president's wife 'cause you're such a trustworthy person, nobody gives you anything for free.

    Yes, I know, this is unpleasant news. Yes, everyone started at some point. But I do have zero sympathy with people who don't even want to inform themselves of the dangers that wait for them and are incredibly surprised when the sh.t hits the fan. It's not like trojans, viruses and mailworms are such novel ideas and so incredibly secret that nobody's heard about them yet. The info is there, and it's about time people read and use it!

    "But I just want to use my computer to surf and mail" is no excuse for behaviour that would label you unfit to live if you exhibited it outside of the net. If you let some stranger into your home and let him peruse your belongings, you'd be a moron. And if you do it with your net and some app, you're one, too.

    Get a clue or get out of the 'net. I can't stomach it anymore. If people behaved in traffic like they do on the net, the average news wouldn't even mention a pileup anymore, it would be the everyday occurance.

    So, now label me troll and let's go on with our lives.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  75. why crack computers by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.

    A computer that is owned, has been cracked and is used remotely, is ideal for many scumbags. They are able to avoid having dirt on their own computers. Also commanding someone else's computer that's always on, has abroadband collection, can be used as a server.

    The way some of these stories and comments are written, it sounds like someone examining the computer found dozens of pictures of kiddie porn on there, and the explanation is "the virus did it!"...but I don't see the motive in writing a virus to do that...a popup or two, yes, but not dozens of images.

    Again the computer might be being used as a server. The same techniques are used for DDOS attacks.

    Falcon
    1. Re:why crack computers by Skater · · Score: 1

      Okay, thanks to you and everyone else that responded. I guess it was a dumb question since I got 22 replies! But no flames, so it must not have been TOO dumb. ;)

      I didn't think of the remote server aspect. Reading these replies makes me very glad I use Linux at home, with FTP turned off and a strong firewall in place. I was thinking along the lines of so many people that have adult entertainment images stored on their hard drives, but the difference is that's not illegal.

  76. Or not so innocent... by CandideEC · · Score: 1

    I have seen a lot of computers infected with a lot of crap...here is some news...I have never seen any that are distributing child porn. I have watched Dateline NBC though...perv's into underage kids are everywhere...it's even less surprising to find underage kids into underage kids. What would you do if you where caught with porn? When I was at University and got caught using bit-torrent less than morally 3 times, what do you think I did? Fess up and get sued? Loose my internet access? Blame ignorance and a Kazza install and get away scot free? What would you do? Perhaps the kid was innocent...ever visited yahoo user made chat rooms...doesn't look like too many innocent kids chilling there (I think and hope they have finally been shut down or cleaned up)...

  77. It can happen by grahamsz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first of my friends to try installing linux didn't realize the particular distribution came with FTP installed with an anonymous account. After spending a few hours trying to figure out why the internet was so slow, he discovered someone was using his machine to distribute porn, some of which was of questionable legality.

    This was back in probably 95 or 96, so i'm sure in the intervening decade distributors have got much better at it. Using a network of hijacked computers to sell your "product" would probably make reasonable sense - you certainly dont want to host it on your colo account.

    This unfortunately leads us to one of two conclusions

    1) spyware is a legitimate out for child porn charges
    2) people should be responsible for anything that shows up on their computers

    I'm sure people here will argue 2 all the way, but when it comes down to it we all make configuration mistakes. I had a disk error once result in our sendmail.cf file being truncated at 1024 bytes, which was just enough to leave it working but turn it into an open relay. I've never had random files appear on my boxes, but i'm sure part of that is luck since i'm not really obsessive about monitoring logs etc... yet i'm probably 10x better than your average computer user.

    In the end we need our investigators and prosecutors to have a high degree of technical knowledge, so they can seperate out the victims from the perpatrators. Is that too much to ask?

    1. Re:It can happen by bckrispi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      2) people should be responsible for anything that shows up on their computers
      Responsible to the point that they're staring down a life sentence in prison??
      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    2. Re:It can happen by FranklinDelanoBluth · · Score: 1

      In the end we need our investigators and prosecutors to have a high degree of technical knowledge, so they can seperate out the victims from the perpatrators. Is that too much to ask?

      Yes, I would say so. Does every criminal prosecutor have their MD? No. Then how could they ever use medical evidence (DNA, etc.) in a trial? Medical consultants as witnesses.

      I hope you see where I'm going with this. Just the same, lawyers don't need "computer hacking skills," they just need some technical consultants in these cases to help them understand what is going on in these cases. This would be an excellent job for most in the /. crowd.

    3. Re:It can happen by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      I for one never, ever want to make Bubba burgers, with you supplying the buns.

    4. Re:It can happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) people should be responsible for anything that shows up on their computers

      Right after Microsoft accepts responsibilty for the exploitable PoS also known as Windows.

    5. Re:It can happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, the same way a parent is held responsible if they have a loaded gun without a lock on it and their kid accidently blows their brains out.

    6. Re:It can happen by sckeener · · Score: 1

      2) people should be responsible for anything that shows up on their computers

      Responsible to the point that they're staring down a life sentence in prison??


      who needs to go to prison to have a life ruined?

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    7. Re:It can happen by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      What if they keep their gun unloaded and locked up, with ammo locked up in a different place, both high up on shelves, and someone breaks into their house, gets the stuff out (they're very good safecrackers), and then hands the loaded gun to a child and then harps on the child until he shoots himself?

      Should the parent go to jail for the rest of their life for that?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:It can happen by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Yes, the first place an awesome hacker who knows child porn scam and trojan tricks inside and out (but is otherwise truly innocent) wants to go is to work for a prosecutor who has an itchy trigger finger to get people thrown in the clink for 20-to-life because a cache has a cryptic picture of an unknown woman's coincidentally 17 year old boob from a popup 3 clicks deep away from an images.google.com search for "George W. Bush awesome president".

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:It can happen by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > 2) people should be responsible for anything that shows up on their computers

      Just like a driver of a car should be jailed for anything any passenger happens to be carrying in their backpack or pockets.

      Just like an ocean crossing freighter worth a billion dollars should be seized by the government because one merchant marine had a doobie in his pocket and there's a zero tolerance rule.

      F'ing brilliant, dude.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  78. WebTV would be perfect by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    WebTV was actually a success with a million subscribers. It was rapidly purchased by Microsoft, before declining. I wonder why...

    WebTV had 8mb of Ram, no local storage, a 33kbs modem and ordinary TV display. But frankly something similar would be ideal for the family mentioned in the article.

    Today we can actually make use of an HDTV, add an ipod or similar usb storage device as local storage, plenty of RAM to run an OS and ADSL or cable. Linux, Firefox on 500Mb flash storage. It could probably be done for $50 by a volume manufacturer.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:WebTV would be perfect by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      An OLPC anyone? Simple, robust has built in screen and wireless to connect to your router. Admittedly it is a bit small for an adult, so all we need is an adult run in a larger case, in say black. Not only that it is an open Linux machine so you can hack it till your hearts content.

  79. Parent has a point by ShaunC · · Score: 1

    He's thinking of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa county. He has prisoners dress in pink underwear and live in tents on the prison grounds. No, I'm not making this up, Google for "sheriff joe" and you'll get plenty of information on this disgrace to our legal system.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:Parent has a point by BCoates · · Score: 1

      He has prisoners dress in pink underwear and live in tents on the prison grounds

      BTW, if you're thinking "so what? They're criminals!", one point that article fails to mention is that most of the people in Arpaio's custody aren't convicted criminals, but being detained awaiting trial (because they can't make bail or are considered a flight risk). They're supposed to be presumed innocent; even if you support the humiliation/punishment of criminals you should be disgusted at this nutjob.

  80. downloading bootleg by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Well that's a good point, but they know that what they are downloading is bootlegged, stolen goods. So yes, they don't want to buy a CD or movie but they'll take it if they can. That's greedy.

    Where does downloading bootlegged material come from?

    Falcon
  81. Why Bother!? by gerf · · Score: 1

    If I had a username irc.goatse.cx troll, the last thing I would be worried about is what people thought of me.

  82. I wonder how he got caught. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Anyone has any info on that?

    The article says Yahoo had reported child porn was uploaded from the computer into some chat rooms.

    Falcon
  83. Windows is not responsible by sulfur · · Score: 1

    The point is that it doesn't matter how insecure your software is, it's the legal system that is broken here. There will always be vulnerabilities in software. There will always be users who execute unknown binaries and click on unknown attachments. There will always be users who have their antivirus' license expired and don't receive latest definitions and feel falsely safe. Yes, you can install Linux or Firefox or whatever, and it would most likely reduce the possibility of your machine being compromised. But it is like trying to cure effects of the disease, not the source of the disease. I use to think of myself as an experienced computer user, but I will never be able to guarantee that my machine cannot be compromised. Never say never, and the situation in TFA can happen to everybody. That's why laws need to be rethought of instead of blaming insecure software.

    1. Re:Windows is not responsible by anagama · · Score: 1

      Yours is a voice of reason. So many people talk about how sure they are that their system is malware free, will always be that way, and they never visit dangerous sites. Frankly, this sounds like hubris to me. Computers are amazingly complicated machines -- it would be extremely difficult to know exactly what is going on in there. As for dangerous sites, undoubtedly I run across those because I search google and click on links google provides -- not all of them are good sites. Anyway, I believe lots of people think they are too smart to get caught and thus probably make themselves more vulnerable. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I run through a NAT, a linux box as a firewall, and have no windows machines on my network. Maybe I'm safe and maybe I'm not. What I do know is there are people out there who know a heck of a lot more about this stuff than I do, so I work under a principle that I'm compromised rather than that I'm safe. Call me a hatter.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  84. Not going to happen by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    Not going to happen for technical reasons: People complain that their desktops are slow enough as it is - Now we're going to replace the latency and speed of their hdd/memory with that of an internet connection? Forget it. I've run remote X apps on my home 100m ethernet (Konqueror, gaim, ethereal). The experience was acceptable, mainly because those apps were not present where I wanted them to be. They were entirely lacking the snappy response we all expect from a desktop, especially when there was no choice but to bitmap stuff (ie web pages). I have yet (thanks be to the Gods) been spared Konqueror-over-adsl. I'll consider giving this up when I my internet connection runs at 3gigabits per second rather than 3mbps, enough to play full-resolution full-screen games (well, today's games) with a bit left over for other uses. Seriously - Compare getting on a school's web page from the school's intranet vs home. The only time the site is remotely desktop-like is from the local intranet.

    Not going to happen for privacy reasons: You don't forsee any issues regarding a single monolithic entity (not yourself) that has access to all your data, all the time, and can do anything it wants with it? At least when AT&T tries to give the NSA a warrantless tap to everyone's information, you can use SSL. If all your information sits on one mainframe, look forward to the NSA, FBI, MAFIAA (music amd film industry association of America) demanding access. Look forward to some providers doing whatever those groups want without telling you. Look forward to DRM succeeding because you don't control the hardware or the software anymore. Look forward to your MP3s and MPEGs disappearing. "No hard drive to worry about, nothing police can find in your possession to investigate, charge, prosecute and punish you for, no viruses, no spyware, no adware, no trojan software." Sorry, but LOL!

    Not going to happen because central bureaucracies are incompetent: Personal computers took off and timeshare systems died because I know what I want, and the geek running the 360 doesn't. My PC isn't arbitrarily given resource limits, and I don't need to bribe the sysadmin to give my system more RAM or a new video card because the idiots in accounting lost the last 5 requests.

    There's a reason that dial-in timeshare systems died as shortly after it was practical to make a computer that fits unobtrusively in one's home. People will allocate given resources to get what they want, centralized systems will try and in comparison fail horribly. And one last thing, "Any software that the average person needs in the future will be streamed directly to their graphics display terminal..." So what about those of us who aren't content to just suck up whatever TermCo offers?

    1. Re:Not going to happen by viewtouch · · Score: 1

      But, you see, you're not the average user and you're not seeing it from their viewpoint. There are 1,000 of them for every one of you. And for all you know there is so much you don't yet imagine.

      For example, you talk about bitmaps. But you disregard remote user-side graphics rendering.

      You talk about running X apps remotely. But most X apps designed for desktop users make no provision for serving up displays remotely, hence don't perform well remotely. No surprise there.

      You presume a 'monolithic entity'. But this isn't the way it's ever been done or ever will be done. How many web sites are there, a handful or countless millions?

      You're thinking timesharing. But that's not how it's going to be done.

      You won't need to worry about any of this because all this technology is being designed to ignore you and your attitude about it. So relax.

    2. Re:Not going to happen by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      "You won't need to worry about any of this because all this technology is being designed to ignore you and your attitude about it. So relax."

      Those with control never take kindly to those who refuse to be controlled.

  85. Fortunately... by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...by mentioning his full name in the article, /. made sure that any searches for + "sex offender" will turn up hits for decades to come. Nice work.

    --
    If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    1. Re:Fortunately... by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      Don't know why this is modded 'Funny'. Well, intelligence is no requisite for getting mod points.

      Nevertheless, it is not that harsh as it sounds. If I am seeking for my real name in the net, I get several hits, which are not me. So that his name might come up in a search for 'sex offender' is not a problem. At least by far not that much of a problem he had, should he be officially registered as sex offender in Satan's own country.

  86. Nancy Grace by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    The family made the mistake of talking to the police before they talked to a lawyer and once the kid admitted looking at "Playboy"-type images the cops donned their blinders and got their Nancy Grace on.

    Nancy Grace does get a hardon about prosecuting someone before enough investigation is done and info is released to decide innocence or guilt. Then again her fiance was murdered. If I recall right originally she wanted to be a actor but when he was murdered she switched her major to law.

    Falcon
    1. Re:Nancy Grace by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      If I recall right originally she wanted to be a actor but when he was murdered she switched her major to law.

            I think it was English teacher. Now she does some acting from time to time. :)

        rd

    2. Re:Nancy Grace by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If I recall right originally she wanted to be a actor but when he was murdered she switched her major to law.

      I think it was English teacher. Now she does some acting from time to time. :)

      Yea, on Larry King Live! And on Court TV I think.

      Actually I kind of like her but I think she's too quick in concluding someone's guilty.

      Falcon
    3. Re:Nancy Grace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, Nancy Grace does decide people are guilty far too easily for my tastes. And the woman is shrill. The thing that bothers me most about her attitude, though, is how unseemly it is for a former Prosecuting Attorney to go around telling the world what she thinks about every high-profile suspect who has merely been indicted. She certainly doesn't deserve to have 6 hours a day of television on two different networks, IMHO.

      glarbl_blarbl

      (Posting AC to preserve spent mod points)

  87. It gets more complicated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as this website, of an Australian Internet activist, points out.

  88. Purpose of the Legal System by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: the worst thing for a legal system to do is to convict innocents.

    Let's think about the purpose of the legal system for a while. Why do we want laws at all? Why, we want to make sure people can just live their lives, without being robbed, killed, raped, and whatnot. So we make robbery, rape, murder, etc. illegal. Now we have two categories of people: innocents and criminals. The innocents are the people we want to protect, the criminals are who we want to protect the innocents from. So we must arrest and convict the criminals. A legal system that does not result in criminals getting caught is useless. But a system that results in innocents getting punished is worse than useless, because it does exactly what it was intended to prevent: harm innocent people.

    From what I've heard, the whole crackdown on child pornography is mostly punishing (severely!) a lot of people who are not harming anyone, while the people who do harm others (the criminals _and_ the law enforcers) mostly run free. That can't be good.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Purpose of the Legal System by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

      It so happens when in a society there are so many laws and so many prisons to fill, most unknown, every innocent man becomes a criminal.

    2. Re:Purpose of the Legal System by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It is just a matter of false positives and false negatives. Both are not ok. Minimising one will maximise the other.

    3. Re:Purpose of the Legal System by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``It is just a matter of false positives and false negatives. Both are not ok. Minimising one will maximise the other.''

      That's absolutely correct, but, in this case, false positives are much worse than false negatives.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:Purpose of the Legal System by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
      Hm, depends on your point of view. It is just a matter of weights, and while I understand your scale (weight of false positives = near infinity), others may have a different one (weight of false positives = 1000). Having an innocent guy arrested is no picnic for him. Having a killer running free and murdering ten people affects ten. What's more important? Hard to say.

      Anyway, I mostly reacted against "the worst thing for a legal system to do is to convict innocents". This suggests that a good deal of convictions can still be made while have no false positives at all. I don't think this is possible. Consider: if justice would be organised like that, a suspect would never plead guilty because this would always leave a slight doubt concerning his guilt and he would not be convicted. In general, (brutal) justice systems try to solve this by applying torture, such that the suspect confesses et voilla, "no innocents are convicted".

      In other words (ok, bit redundant here), I think that the cost of avoiding innocent convictions (completely) is prohibitively high.

      This being said: I am a bit playing devil's advocate, because I dislike some government's control (cameras etc) "for my safety" just as much as anyone.

    5. Re:Purpose of the Legal System by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      For the record, I completely agree with your view. Perhaps my original post was a bit too strongly worded. I wanted to make the point that punishing the wrong people is worse than not punishing people at all (which you seem to agree with), but in my fervor to get that point across I seem to have given the suggestion that a single false positive automatically means the system is evil. This is not the case; obviously, one has to balance the bad the system does against the good it does, and, obviously, mistakes will be made whatever system you choose. Still, as I said later on in my post, in the specific case of child pornography, the system seems to punish a lot of good people*, without punishing a lot of bad people.

      * "Good people" is different from "innocent people", because I've defined "innocent" to be determined by which side of the law one is on, which may or may not coincide with being good or bad.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  89. Grammar Nazi Says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Seems common sense is abscent.

    I think you meant: Common sense is absinthe. This may explain the lack thereof.

  90. statutory rape by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    What really rots your socks is he could have had a picture of a girl 17 and older than him, flashing her tits, and not only would it be child porn, but they could easily try the 16 year old as an adult!

    That's the problem with statutory rape laws, a 15 year old boy can have consentual sex with a 17 year old girl and he can be charged with statutory rape.

    Falcon
    1. Re:statutory rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a 4 year old boy can have sex with a 17 year old girl and the 4 year old gets charged? Where is the line drawn?

    2. Re:statutory rape by jasonhamilton · · Score: 1

      There are usually exceptions, usually if you're within 3 years of the other person, it's OK. So a 16 year old and a 19 year old are usually okay. I say "usually", since it varies from state to state.

      --
      SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
    3. Re:statutory rape by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Yes, that could legally happen. It probably wouldn't. But it could.

      The line is drawn at 18 in most states. Some have more complex laws that work better, but in many cases, if two people under 18 have sex, legally speaking they are raping each other.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    4. Re:statutory rape by TheLink · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not in Georgia I hear.

      http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_ channel_id=32&url_article_id=22700&url_subchannel_ id=&change_well_id=2&weak

      He 17, she 15.

      What they did: _consensual_ oral sex.
      What Georgia Supreme Court confirmed it was: aggravated child molestation.
      What he gets: 10 years, plus probably being classed as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

      --
    5. Re:statutory rape by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      Some have more complex laws that work better, but in many cases, if two people under 18 have sex, legally speaking they are raping each other.
      It has been shown many times that the laws weren't really read as they were voted, but sometimes it really shows. (duh)
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    6. Re:statutory rape by markjo · · Score: 1

      Where is the line drawn? Depends on what state you're in: http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm
    7. Re:statutory rape by budgenator · · Score: 1
      I think the line is pretty much 13 anymore, once your 13 you can be tried as an adult. Locally we had 3 kids who got tired of being bullied at school and made up a fantasy revenge plan; were going to
      1. steal a car,
      2. drive 3 miles out of town to rob a gun store that was built like Fort Knox
      3. who's alarm system is answered by the sheriff in like 3 minutes, the State police take about 10
      4. steal some guns and ammo
      5. go to school and kill about 20 kids
      6. Live happily ever-after

      well some girl overheard them and turned them in, and of course the cops found the "hit list" and now they are going to be in juvie until they're 18, luckily they were 11 and 12, if they had been 13 they could havbe been treid as adults and probably would have done some prison time after they turned 18
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  91. How'd They Find the Stuff? by mqduck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm surprised no one else is interested in knowing how the authorities discovered this child porn.

    --
    Property is theft.
    1. Re:How'd They Find the Stuff? by finkployd · · Score: 1

      According to the article, some of it was uploaded to a yahoo group from an ip addressed tracked to the family's ISP.

      Finkployd

  92. if they are still dangerous, they shouldn't be out by r00t · · Score: 1

    If they are not dangerous, leave them alone. Otherwise... why in Hell are these people running free?

    What, we aren't too sure? We'll wait to see how many people they attack? Lovely. I so look forward to being the victim who gets to prove that yes indeed, inmate #5254352 should go back to jail.

  93. Does Arizona Elect DAs? by hengist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems to me that the problem with over-zealous prosecutors could be that they are elected in many places. They need to get a certain number of convictions for certain crimes to show that they're "tough on kiddie porn/drugs/terrorism/jay-walking".

    This means, of course, that there will almost inevitably be abuses of the prosecution process, with people like this 15 year-old the victims.

    The long-term solution could be to stop electing the prosecutors.

    1. Re:Does Arizona Elect DAs? by neelakantankk · · Score: 1

      What is up with that prosecutor? Get a life. and stop ruining other people's lives. He must have known that the kid was innocent. Yet he still presses for "sex offender" status, knowing very well, that the kid's life will be ruined. Makes you wonder who the real "child abuser" is.

  94. Tell em' what you think... by darekana · · Score: 1

    Be sure to drop the prosecutor a note whenever you come across some questionable material:
    http://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/contact.html

    That way you can be sure they will take care of the problem and put our tax dollars to good use.

  95. I can take a guess... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Why are the child porn types writing software that magically puts child porn on random people's computers? I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, other than potentially hurting their business by bringing child pornography into the spotlight.

    I can take a guess, and come up with two possibilities just off the top of my head:

      1) Maybe (as one user already pointed out) their malware is parasitizing the system as a server.

    but more likely:

      2) Law enforcement is currently able to obtain child porn convictions based on simple possession, if they find a file (even a deleted one) on the accused's machine. By spreading malware that drops such files on a large number of innocent people's machines, they may hope to get a judgement that mere possession of the files is not evidence of a crime and/or get the laws on simple possession repealed - perhaps after major pressure from improperly prosecuted innocents (as we're seeing now).

    This would force the prosecutors to actually prove the accused person hunted down and downloaded, or solicited the transmission of, the files, rather than just that the files were on his machine. That's a much tougher job for the prosecutors.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:I can take a guess... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      This would force the prosecutors to actually prove the accused person hunted down and downloaded, or solicited the transmission of, the files, rather than just that the files were on his machine. That's a much tougher job for the prosecutors.

      After that they could tackle the little problem of mislabeled files. If you download "knitting instructions and a demonstration.mpeg" and it turns out to be child porn in reality, are you guilty ? After all, you did authorize the transfer, but thought you were getting a video of someone showing you how to make clothes.

      Of course this makes it impossible to convict downloaders and still get no false positives. If we want to keep the principle of "better a hundred guilty men walk free than one innocent be wrongly punished", then I don't think we can go after downloaders. It's just impossible to prove them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. So it might be neccessary to concentrate all efforts on makers instead.

      Not that any of this matters, since Child Porn is a political subject, one where it's easy to get political points, and that makes rational thinking about the problem impossible. It's the equivalent of Nuclear Power, Communism and Drugs for the new millenium.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:I can take a guess... by AGMW · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's the equivalent of Nuclear Power, Communism and Drugs for the new millenium.

      Indeed, it appears to be the modern day McCarthyism! The whole concept to stopping whatever your country decides are children from experimenting with each other is ludicrous! Obviously, there's a problem with predatory adults (and sad to say usually males!), but to apply those same rules to 16 year olds is crazy!

      Age of Consent by country (some examples from the page) :-
      UK - 16
      USA - up to 18 (differs by state!)
      Spain - 13
      Madagascar - 21

      Spain seems low to me, but I guess I am just used to the UK's 16. 18 seems high, and who'd want to grow up in Madagascar!

      Maybe the issue is just when there's a large age range between the (otherwise) consenting parties? There was a case recently in the UK of a substitute teacher who the school governers discovered had a previous sex offence with a 15 year old when he was 30-something. A big to-do in the papers (Daily Mail!) about it. He lost his job - probably never worked again as a teacher, which is all well and good you might say - serves him right! Turns out, they married a year or so later and are still married now! Perhaps he really did love her?

      Rules are (usually) good, but the blanket application of rules will pretty much ALWAYS come across cases where the rules should be flexible or there will be injustices.

      If these childporn hackers are looking for PCs why don't the authorities setup some honey-trap PCs without firewalls etc, and catch the people who use them - spammers, pornographers, whatever! Surely that would be the sensible thing. The pornographers are seeding (potentially!) innocent people's PCs with illegal pictures to try and grey the concept of guilt, why not fight back with honey-trap PCs so the hackers have a grey area to ponder on about whether this really is a safe PC for them to take over!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    3. Re:I can take a guess... by klang · · Score: 1

      Note, that in Spain, there is an additional rule...

      It is not legal for an adult (of age 18 and above) to have sex with 13 year olds, but children can fool around with eachother without problems. The age and age difference between the "culpits" are taken into account.

    4. Re:I can take a guess... by lukas84 · · Score: 1

      Switzerland has a similar concept.

      AoC is 16, but if the age difference is three years or less, it's also legal. (e.G. 17yr with 14yr, but not 18yr with 14yr, which is just as arbitrary).

    5. Re:I can take a guess... by Sarastrobert · · Score: 1

      What about the 18 year old with a 17 year old girl friend? How is that law worded, does courts have the possibility to use their own judgement?

      Fixed age limits just come with so many problems, nothing says that something happens suddenly on your eighteenth (or whichever) birthday that makes you able to interact sexually without harm. There can be a huge difference between eighteen year olds and eighteen year olds, people mature differently. There is also a huge difference with two teenagers having sex with each other or some 50 year old having it with a teenager.

      Courts must be given room to make individual judgements based on the circumstances. Fixed age limits doesn't cut it.

    6. Re:I can take a guess... by klang · · Score: 1

      What about the 18 year old with a 17 year old girl friend?
      Age of consent 14. With an "decipt"-loophole at 16 (an adult is not allowed to sweet talk under-16s into bed). Prostitution below 18 is illegal. So, all in all, your example is perfectly allright. (18/16 would be too, 18/15 and 18/14 would probably be judged in each case). You don't turn adult the second you turn 18.

      How is that law worded, does courts have the possibility to use their own judgement?

      The wording of the law, in Spanish:
      http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Penal/lo1 0-1995.l2t8.html

      The reason for judges is to have a judgement in each case. Nothing is automatic.
      "Judge" is a job not an appointed political position, in some countries ;-)

  96. the problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time i was at school on a computer they used internet explorer, i dont know how they stayed away from crap, maybe they use a rollout that saved peoples files, and then reset windows back to a clean state if it was infected, but 90.9% of infections is due to people using internet explorer, that's a well known fact. if the law (for every country) was more harsher againsts spamers, and malware writers, the infections would significantly drop.. but thats not gonna happen, with the can-spam act more leniant than the DMCA copyright law, but who abides the law anyway, if you do if probably wont matter with these sue-happy zealots, according to law child porn is worse then murder, you get slapped many years in jail and if you get out, you are tracked, and labled a sex offender, basically your name and life is over even if your innocent, if you kill someone i sure you'll get many years, and your consience will overtake you, but you won't be treated like a sex-offender.

    not that i'm promoting anything like this, just my oppinion.

  97. What we need: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    (c) a Federal requirement that states require a grand jury before going to trial on any felony.

    I think grand juries are BS!!! One person cotrols the grand jury, the prosecutor. A defendent isn't even allowed an attorney in hearings, not without permission of the prosecutor. Yet too many people get the idea that if a grand jury indicts someone they must be guilty.

    Falcon
    1. Re:What we need: by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think grand juries are BS!!! One person cotrols the grand jury, the prosecutor. A defendent isn't even allowed an attorney in hearings, not without permission of the prosecutor.

      That's fine - at least they serve as somewhat of a check on the power of a prosecutor. Better than a prosecutor basically being able to press any charges he wants and have people in jail or having their reputations tainted until a trial happens to occur.

      For those who don't like grand juries, I propose an alternative. Allow private prosecutions of prosecutorial and police misconduct under civil rights legislation (18 USC 241,242,etc). By private prosecution, I mean allowing a private attorney (hired by the aggreived party) to press charges against a state official in the name of the state. This is possible under common law, but infrequently used or impossible today. Why private prosecution? Government officials seem a bit too unwilling to prosecute one another, so someone from outside sometimes needs to be brought in.

      -b.

    2. Re:What we need: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      For those who don't like grand juries, I propose an alternative. Allow private prosecutions of prosecutorial and police misconduct under civil rights legislation (18 USC 241,242,etc). By private prosecution, I mean allowing a private attorney (hired by the aggreived party) to press charges against a state official in the name of the state. This is possible under common law, but infrequently used or impossible today. Why private prosecution? Government officials seem a bit too unwilling to prosecute one another, so someone from outside sometimes needs to be brought in.

      Thanks for the info, I thought government officials were immune to prosecution for performing actions as part of their job. If they can be prosecuted then I fully support this. Actually I fully support a Fully Informed Jury and Jury Nullification.

      Falcon
    3. Re:What we need: by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the info, I thought government officials were immune to prosecution for performing actions as part of their job.

      Not if the actions were illegal when performed and/or violated the Constitution which they were sworn to uphold. Kind of like the fact that a soldier can be shot for genocide and the fact that the orders came from "on high" is not a defense.

      -b.

  98. showing someone Playboy by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Wow. You USAians really live in a fucked up country if you can be charged with showing your mates a playboy.

    Unfortunately this is all too true. With the way things are, if a parent were to do what my mother did while I was growing up she'd be prosecuted for child abuse, child endangerment, or indescency to a minor. What did she do? She gave me "Playboys" and alcoholic drinks. The parents I saw and met in Germany when I was there would be prosecuted today with these charges. What did they do? A parent would get a glass of wine for their child when eating at a restaurant.

    Falcon
  99. The real point by belmolis · · Score: 1

    The real point that I take away from this is that laws against child pornography ARE the problem. The solution is to legalize it. These laws create enormous problems. They provide a basis for invasions of privacy that would otherwise not take place, and they result in ordeals like this one for far too many innocent people. In addition to the problem that innocent people can easily end up with child porn on their computers inadvertently, there is also the problem that child porn is ill-defined. People have been prosecuted for taking pictures of their kids naked at the beach or in the back yard.

    The evidence that viewing child porn encourages child molestation is weak at best. However repulsive it may seem to most of us, the policy reasons for banning child pornography are minimal. The harm that these laws do is far greater. This isn't to say that child molestation is acceptable. People who molest children, and that includes those who make child pornography involving real children (yes, people have been prosecuted for "child porn" consisting of purely imaginary drawings) should prosecuted, but the laws against child porn should be repealed.

    1. Re:The real point by Random+Guru+42 · · Score: 1

      Ah, the good old "if there are no laws, there can be no criminals" argument. Somehow I just don't see that catching on...

      By the way, if you're going to claim "that viewing child porn encourages child molestation is weak at best" it wouldn't hurt to cite some good, critically reviewed sources that back the claim up. It won't stop the knee-jerkers, but it will at least give the mildly skeptical and those on the fence something to think about.

      --
      Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
    2. Re:The real point by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Wrong. This is not the "if there were no laws there would be no crime argument." Read and think more carefully. Rather, I'm distinguishing between child molestation, which is harmful, and viewing child porn, which is not.

  100. Is there really malware that does this? by kalpaha · · Score: 1

    The part I don't get about this kind of issues is that the explanation is always the same: there was spyware (or whatever) on his computer, so he didn't do it! How do you make that mental leap? Is there solid evidence behind it? Are there really trojans that litter a computer with child pr0n? Or is it just about deniability?

    Sure it's enough to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but how common is it to get your computer infected with child pr0on or other unacceptable material? I don't know anyone who this would've happened to. Are they just too unlucky to both get infected with the brand of malware that spreads that kind of material, and get caught about it before figuring it out themselves?

    I mean, if you compare it to the doping scandals, we hear the standard lines again and again. "I got cold and took an aspirin, the growth hormone must've come from there". Maybe I'm just a bit cynical.

    1. Re:Is there really malware that does this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sure it's enough to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but how common is it to get your computer infected with child pr0on or other unacceptable material? I don't know anyone who this would've happened to.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
    2. Re:Is there really malware that does this? by kalpaha · · Score: 1

      You may be right, I may have been hasty. Then again, people who I know don't get a lot of malware in the first place. But the point still stands, that you hear about malware pulling all kinds of crap daily, but never about this kind of problems -- except when people are charged with stuff. It'd give the argument much more relevance, if I ever heard of one innocent case (say a slashdotter's family member) that had some illegal files placed on their computers.

      Then again, people might not want to tell if they found something illegal in their parents computer, just clean it up and keep their mouth shut. So, if anyone has ever run into this, post AC and let us know!

    3. Re:Is there really malware that does this? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      I have seen computers infected with malware that sent spam mail or did DOS attacks. If someone wanted to download something illegal, why wouldn't they just get one of the off-the-shelf rootkit programs, take over an vulnarable machine, and use it as a proxy?

      Put yourself in the shoes of the criminal, and reverse engineer what is happening? How would you go about not getting caught? Now, assume the criminals have already been doing the same thing.

  101. Reference? by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    Do you have a reference for that girl getting charged with molesting herself?

  102. A lesson in citizen names: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    People from the United States of America = Americans

    Another lesson:

    Citizens of the United States of America = Unites States of America citizens.

    Or put another way America is not a country, it is the continents of North America and South America together. Someone from Brazil is just as American as someone from the USA.

    Falcon
    1. Re:A lesson in citizen names: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Or put another way America is not a country, it is the continents of North America and South America together. Someone from Brazil is just as American as someone from the USA.

      Shouldn't the first country to gain independence in the Western Hemisphere have a say on what its citizens are called? What about the most populous country in the Americas? Or even the country with the highest GDP? Luckily, all three of these are the same country, so we don't have to figure out which takes precedence.

      Just call everyone else "Columbians" (after Christopher Columbus). Since the citizens of the Republic of Colombia are Colombians, there shouldn't be any confusion. Or if there is, we can call Colombians "RCians."

    2. Re:A lesson in citizen names: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh... I would love to be called Columbian if that makes a difference. However, the continent is still America. But we could call you Amerigons after Amerigo Vespuci.

      Colombia is known as Colombia, and not like United States of America, they don`t need acronyms to condense four words.

      What amazes me the most, is your "typical" view as an US citizen: "We were the "first" and we have a lot of money, then we can take over what ever we want, including Irak".

      Good luck going to Irak!

    3. Re:A lesson in citizen names: by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      No, a citizen from Brazil would be a South American, and specifically a Brazilian.

      A person from Canada would be a North American, and specifically a Canadian.

      A person from the USA would be a North American, and specifically an American.

      This is so because citizens are generally refered to by their country, not their continent.

      Or to put it another way, when was the last time to heard anyone in Europe refer to themselves directly as European rather than French, or Spanish, or Brittish or Irish? Likewise, when was the last time you heard a Canadian self identify as an American?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    4. Re:A lesson in citizen names: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Or to put it another way, when was the last time to heard anyone in Europe refer to themselves directly as European rather than French, or Spanish, or Brittish or Irish? Likewise, when was the last time you heard a Canadian self identify as an American?

      But not all in France call themselves French, or in Spain Spanish. For instance in the French province of Brittany, some call themself Breton. In southern France and northern Spain there's the Basques. Spain has the Catalans as well as several othe ethnic groups, some of whom like the Basques are fighting for autotonomy if not independence from Spain. One such group is the Basques ETA, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna fighting for "Basque Homeland and Freedom". Recall it was the ETA who was blamed for the Madrid train bombings by the then Spanish Premier, when it was really al Quada affiliated terrorists. The same can be said of some in Great Britian, the Irish in Northern Ireland, Welsh in Wales, Cornish in Cornwall, Scots in Scotland, and Celts spread throughout not just the British Isles but western Europe down to Spain.

      Falcon
    5. Re:A lesson in citizen names: by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Which has no bearing on the point at hand except to further prove mine, that people do not self identify by their continent.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    6. Re:A lesson in citizen names: by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Which has no bearing on the point at hand except to further prove mine, that people do not self identify by their continent.

      As you said people refer to themselves by thier nationality it bares directly to the point, that many different ethnic groups identify with their ethnic group not with the nation and the ethnic group does not neccessarily correspond to the nation.

      Falcon
  103. Re:Interview with the District Attorney in the cas by hoxford · · Score: 1

    It's a shame Thomas didn't finish his statement in an honest way. It would have sounded something like this:

    "Well, I...again, I...I'm not sure that that's totally right. But you gotta... you know, get ahead. If you have to ruin some innocent boy's life for your own political gain, then so be it. What, you think this is about justice?"

  104. The wrong way to fight porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a Christian, and I can't ethically accept pornography. It degrades women, making them no more than objects of gratification.

    There is a strong internet culture of embracing pornography - which feeds into child pornography. The longer you look at porn the less of a thrill it is - so you have to view images that are more intense to get the same thrill. For some people, this doesn't stop until they've crossed the line into child pornography.

    I'm sorry - but emprisoning people who are caught is not the answer to the problem - the answer is in changing internet culture, something that no one is willing (maybe able) to get their hands dirty to change.

    Everyone gets mad at the perverts, but maybe we are all contributing to the problem.

    1. Re:The wrong way to fight porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, perhaps it's Christan schools that are teaching you how to spell "imprisoning"?

      Not to mention it's idiotic to assume that kiddie-porn is 'extreme', in comparison to something like, say, goatse, or double anal tranny midget-on-horse jello wrestling. It's not extreme, it's just -sick-.

    2. Re:The wrong way to fight porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exploiting (and the viewing of) children for their own sexual fulfillment is sick. Kids have a right to grow up happy, healthy, and carefree.
      Spelling? Spelling? We're talking about children being exploited for pornography and people being falsly imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit - and you're worried about typos???

    3. Re:The wrong way to fight porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm a Christian, and I can't ethically accept pornography. It degrades women, making them no more than objects of gratification.
      Well, I'm a Christian, and I have no problem accepting it. Get with the times.
    4. Re:The wrong way to fight porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian: (loose definition) a follower of Christ. I don't see how you can follow Christ and have no problem accepting pornography. Read your Bible.

    5. Re:The wrong way to fight porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make the mental leap from pornography degrading women to child pornography and kesus in one breath? You obviously know nothing of the adult industry, its regulations and DISGUST for CP, yet you feel the urge to shove your uneducted view down others throats for Jesus Points.

      I'm scared of people like YOU contributing to these problems.

  105. so it's not on THEIRS when the cops come! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    they're not stupid, they know not to actually host the kiddie porn on a machine traceable to them, so botnets are the perfect cover... being as IRC and Usenet are starting to get smarter every year to push them out.

  106. Windows 98 ? by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

    I watched the 20/20 segment about Matt on ABC. If I heard correctly, I believe they said that the family computer was using Windows 98. I don't really know how well Windows 98 can or can't be secured, but it was not Windows XP with Service Pack II. Does Microsoft still provide security patches for Windows 98? If so were they applied?

    A family that is still using Windows 98 does not sound like they are serious computer users. These are probably clueless computers users who don't know the first thing about computer security. I couldn't help but instantly picture this computer that was probably full of spyware and perhaps even a root kit, open ports, unpatched security flaws and who knows what else.

    The 20/20 segment also mentioned that Matt agreed to take a lie detector test and passed the test. Even after he passed the polygraph exam the prosecutor continued to press charges.

    Their lawyer eventually had computer expert Tammi Loehrs look at the hard drive. On the ABC website, it says that she found "... more than 200 infected files, so-called backdoors that allowed hackers to access the family computer from remote locations ... ." On the show someone suggested that someone may have preferred to stash those files on the Bandy family computer instead of storing it on his own.

    By the way, according to a recent New York Times article, an estimated 11 percent of all computers are zombie computers that are part botnets spewing out spam. So law enforcement and prosecutors should start with always asking who else might be controlling the computer.

    I mostly use my Linux box at home and do my best to try to keep it sure. I download the latest security updates regularly, I keep all TCP/IP ports closed and fully stealth. We also have a Windows XP SP II laptop that connects to the wireless router with 802.11g, but we do use WPA encryption with a very long non-random password. Both computers use the latest version of Mike's Ad Blocking Hosts file to block advertising URLs. Some people think I am too paranoid, but after seeing the 20/20 segment on ABC, I can't help thinking, "I hope I haven't missed anything."

    If someone ever wants to frame or discredit someone, now we know, all they need to do is send a few child porn photos to that person's less than perfectly secured computer and then somehow tip off law enforcement.

    1. Re:Windows 98 ? by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      A family that is still using Windows 98 does not sound like they are serious computer users.

            I'm replying to this with my main posting computer, a Windows 98 with Netscape 7. With this, and BlackIce firewall and a modicum of good sense, I haven't had to worry about all that can befall Windows for quite a few years now. I finally had to disable a setting not long ago to keep the WMF exploit from nailing me though.

            I also have XP Pro and Firefox for other work, but it's on a lifeline to the mothership for a steady stream of security downloads. And I still don't feel as safe with it as I do with my Windows 98.

        rd

  107. Mod Parent Up! by necro81 · · Score: 1

    I couldn't agree more. I have my cable modem, wireless router, stereo, and laptop power cord all plugged into the same power strip at home. For the 18-23 hours a day when I'm not using my computer, the laptop is sleeping and the power strip is off. This simple action cuts the power usage down to nothing (other than the
    All it takes is a single flick of the switch - how much easier do people need it to be?

  108. barely escaped? no.. by bLindmOnkey · · Score: 1

    "Matt finally was allowed to plead to a lesser charge (namely, sharing a Playboy magazine with friends) and just barely escaped being labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life." barely escaped being labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life? if you read carefully: FTA: "While the prosecution deal offered no jail time for Matthew, he would still be labeled a sex offender."

  109. windows firewalls by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to allow such uncontrolled events as described in the post to happen, if I can help it. The only way I can help it is to have an OS running in my home that can be secured. That means MacOS or Linux. That and a hefty firewall. :)

    There is a good firewall for Windows, ZoneAlarm. Unfortunately it doesn't work with Firefox or Netscape newer than 4.x. Now, only if I could find a firewall like it for OSX and Linux. Sure there are some for them but I haven't found one that allows the user to block javascript, Java, or other objects by website, ie allow some websites to use these but block others from using them.

    Falcon
  110. Come On by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think the naysayers are a bit full of themselves until this actually happens to them. There was a car analogy, but how about a direct gun analogy?


    - Drug dealer (convicted felon) says you have guns and tips DEA (possibly to lessen a charge against themselves..so they can later make money).
    - Criminal (Ibid) puts malware out on the internet (possibly just to make money).


    - Homeowner leaves for work
    - Computer owner leaves for work with computer on


    - District Attorney has no clue but proceeds with warrant
    - Ibid


    - See the article (RTFA)
    - Agents surveil the house, wait till you leave, serve a "no-knock" and pull the front door off the house. Dog/cats are taken to the pound, house is ransacked and left in shambles, and your perfectly legal and $4,000 gunsafe is destroyed in the process of getting inside.


    -Countless legal battles to
    A: Figure out what the hell just happened
    B: Clear yourself of the charges
    - Ibid


    The first one is the article I just read, the second happened to a neighbor two blocks away.

    I've had a computer since 1983, using a TRS computer and a Hayes Smartmodem (300 baud, course) and I've got Sun certified in running hundreds of Solaris systems. I went most of those 23 years without a virus-scanner (just being very careful and patching), but still got bit. YouTube bit me. 23 years experience and a protected/patched system was still defeated. Never downloaded a wallpaper or any attachment for that matter. I played with the malware a little before fixing the system, and it was interesting watching the malware disable and render the AV software inept. In one case, it sat there by itself, just feeding, until I wacked it. A few moments later it re-spawned and this time protected itself from whacking. The other mal-ware blocked the port for updating the AV software...seems ironic the virus is smarter (remapped URLs to localhost) than the AV.


    Oh well....after reading this it's just one more reason to switch over to the Mac when I have the $$$ (yeah, it's still vulnerable....but a lot less attractive to malware).

    So what's my point? Even with all the knowledge and training, you will still get infected. You can scoff at YouTube, or MySpace, but you will eventually get bit. The upside: You'll figure it out quick and patch (hopefully).

    I'll likely get modded as flamebait but to be blunt: You're just as naive as those you scorn if you think the average person is capable of stopping it and "got it from downloading screensavers." I don't think there's a single computer I've seen in the last 5 years that wasn't a Windows OS-installed screensaver. Wallpapers? Yeah, I see those on occasion...

    1. Re:Come On by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you provide any links regarding your neighbour's case? I'd be interested to get a bit more detail - from your summary, it sounds utterly appalling.

    2. Re:Come On by Digz · · Score: 1

      I second the request for more info on your neighbor's story.

      --
      SYS 64738
    3. Re:Come On by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1
      OK, It happened quite a few years ago, around 89-90. It was in Tulsa, Oklahoma and occurred at a residence at about the 27th Street of Mingo/101st (101 East Ave becomes Mingo), which is between 21st Street and 31st Street on the East side of town. Google Link I only really embellished the dog part. They were going to take his dog to the pound, but a neighbor who was next door offered to take care of the pet. Otherwise, they literally left his front door unsecured to anyone/everyone who might have happened by (e.g. said drug dealer who could have been watching the whole thing). The guns themselves were not illegal and there were no drugs. I was purposely vague on the Federal Agency involved because I can't recall if it was the DEA or ATF that conducted the raid.

      What else would you like to know? My father, who is a life-time NRA member and still lives in the area, would remember more and I could ask him more specific as well. At the time, I was in my teenager years so I just thought, "Dude that sucks" and didn't really pay much attention. Now that I'm older, own a home, have a family, and am made to feel like an oddball for owning a firearm (I live in California, although being near Camp Pendleton now, gun ownership is more accepted than up in Orange County).....I have a different take on it now.

    4. Re:Come On by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      Google Link take two. Sorry, I previewed but missed my failure to put the link in.

  111. politics and voting by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    So what's the solution? We've got democracy, and now we're trying to spread it. What would you suggest be done?

    One, stuff like this needs to be fought against. And two, we need to become more aware of what's going on. Unfortunately for too many in the US, there's not enough tyme and it's not worth it to spend what tyme there is on learing about something. It only becomes worth it when it bites them in the ass.

    Now I'm not saying it's all the voters' fault, afterall John and Sue Jones need to feed thier kids, but people really need to consciously decide what is more important.

    Falcon
  112. Security analogy humor by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Informative
    Chris at Riosec quotes Chandler Howell:
    Security is like an analogy. It only works up until the point that someone considers an angle or aspect that you haven't previously considered and accounted for.
  113. A good book by pbaer · · Score: 1

    This book goes into a lot of depth about child porn and the laws surrounding it. It essentially says that we have lost the "war on KP" as it is both readily and cheaplily available to anyone who wants some.

    --
    There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
  114. Time for yet another mac commercial parody? by gwait · · Score: 1

    Here's the basic script for you - hope to see it on youtube shortly!

    Mac guy:

            "Whoa, what's happening to you?"

    PC guy:

            "I don't know, I was busy trying to run my virus scanner when the FBI broke in and arrested me for Child Porn!"

    Mac guy:

            "Wow, good thing the virus didn't load you up with terrorist plans too!"

    Just then Jack Bauer breaks the door down....

    --
    Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
  115. Incrimination? by rolandog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well,... it kind of reminds me of the 'olden' days where horse porn was used as a form of 'WTF' factor.

    1. Re:Incrimination? by SuluSulu · · Score: 1

      I think that Kitty Porn would be more appropriate in this case.

  116. Were the parents ever suspects? by themadplasterer · · Score: 1

    They say there were 9 images of child porn on the computer. The kid got nervous and fessed up about the playboy porn and unknowingly took the rap for one of the parents who had intentionally downloaded the kiddie porn. Just a theory, but quite plausible.

  117. Some things are easier than others by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Tough in general but there's often some bit of data that points one way or another.

    If a whole bunch of URLs get hit half a second apart it's pretty safe to assume malware did it. On the other hand, malware doesn't seem likely to spell the name of a site wrong and then get it right fifteen seconds later. (Note to prosecuting attorneys: that is NOT beyond reasonable doubt).

    There's also a key in the registry that distinguishes between what sites got visited via the address bar and which were visited by following links.

    (I hate getting called in on these. All you porn surfers out there, use your %^&@! home machine).

  118. if computers were cars by Freedom451 · · Score: 1

    they would come off the lot with no locks and a big read "ON" button, and we'd be charged for crimes that car thieves commit.

    --
    When the country falls into chaos, politicians talk about 'patriotism'. Lao-Tzu
  119. what is porn? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    However, I would note there's a big difference between leeching some images and actually abusing children or paying money for images of minors, providing a demand for the continued abuse of children.

    There is also a difference in what different people concern is porn. There have been cases of parents being accused of child porngraphy for taking photos of their child(ren), babies and older children, taking a bath. Heck such things were accepted as being part of a family album while I was growing up, but now it's porn. Ya now, as a photographer there are things I automatically think about twice before taking a photo when just 20 years ago I didn't have to worry I'd be accused of being a child pornographer or a terrorist. Several years ago while I was taking a photography class we discussed a case then going on about how another student was arrested for taking photos at a chemical plant while working on an assignment for one of his classes. He was accused of being a terrorist and photographing potential terrorist targets.

    Falcon
    1. Re:what is porn? by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who is the president of a photography club in CT. He's been arrested twice for refusing to turn over his rolls of film - with pictures of local WPA bridges & Buildings.

  120. Keeping People In Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to run a police state is too keep people in fear, both from criminals and of being falsly accused of being a criminal as well. The terrorists have been slacking lately (they haven't attacked the U.S. in like, what, 6 years now?), and the fear of terrorists is too tied to a bigoted fear of muslims in order to be used to go after middle class white people. Also, your average middle class white person has nothing to fear from being accused of being a terrorist.

    But get people frightened that a sex criminal is lurking around every corner, and set up a system where sending someone to prison for life is as easy as running a rootkit on their computer... and now we are talking paranoia!

  121. If a teen has a naked pic of him/herself is that by lowell · · Score: 1

    a FELONY?

  122. this is what we want!!! by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

    the more articles like this scare joe and jane sixpack off of the internet, the sooner it can stop being a means for all people to connect and share data of all kinds and revert back to it's intended purpose: a place for nerds to argue about star trek.

    --
    sarcasm:
    -noun
    1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
  123. guilty and innocent by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    And it could be like a gang standing around a murder victim. Someone pulled the trigger, but who? You just convict them all is the only way to deal with it.

    Unlike you but like Thomas Jefferson, I'd rather let ten guilty go free than to falsely convict one innocent. Some may, I don't know if you might be one, say "but they must of done something bad anyway". Well if so then find it and charge them with it.

    Falcon
  124. Listen to Gilberto Gil "Soy loco por ti, America" by Guillermito2 · · Score: 1

    In fact, you are wrong. Latino-Americans do feel "American", and I've met more than one (mainly from Argentina and Brazil) who are a bit pissed off at the appropriation of a continent name by a single country. They are and feel American, and so there can be confusion. Just ask them. You should listen to one of the most famous song by brazilian singer Gilberto Gil, it's in spanish and portuguese, and it is called "Soy loco por ti, America" ("I'm crazy about you, America"). He talks about the whole continent, not the USA. Nobody is going to die over this naming problem, but it really does exist. I try to use "people of the USA" instead of "American", to try to be precise, without pissing off anybody. Sometimes you don't need it, depending on the context. But sometimes there really is confusion.

  125. For those who have sigs disabled by VirusEqualsVeryYes · · Score: 2, Informative
    A test of civilization is how it fights nihilism without itself becoming more destructive than the nihilists.
    1. Re:For those who have sigs disabled by Ciarang · · Score: 1

      I knew there was a reason I had sigs disabled.

  126. We Latin Americans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    consider American to be anyone from the American continent, this is from Canada to Argentina.

  127. phreaking by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    "Box[ing]" refers to using a device called a colored "box" (eg. redbox, bluebox, etc) to trick the phone system into (usually) giving you free phone service

    Captain Crunch's whistle anyone? How about 2600?

    Falcon
    1. Re:phreaking by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
  128. Re:If a teen has a naked pic of him/herself is tha by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

    Yes! Now go turn yourself in!

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  129. looking at porn by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    what we can't be sure of, is was this kid looking at pictures at all

    Fixed that for you.

    I mean, the guy has an internet connection and gigs of pr0n, and he goes out and gets a Playboy? Nuff said.

    Actually he admits to looking at legal porn:

    Nevertheless, Matthew did have an embarrassing confession. He had been sneaking peaks at adult erotic photos on the family computer. "I got the Web site from a bunch of friends at school. [It was] just adult pornography...Playboy-like images."

    Falcon
  130. A different perspective by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    I know we're mostly fashionably secular/atheistic here on Slashdot, but I've spent some time recently reading on Wikipedia about a particular Hindu Goddess who among other things, apparently reminds people to be willing to work through their dark sides, and I'm assuming looking at pornography would fall within that category.

    One of the things I've noticed about the so-called "guardians of morality," is that they almost always tend to actually be doing worse things behind closed doors than the people they persecute...the only difference is that they're very secretive about it, and because of that, they can have a much harder time than others controlling it. The sorts of people I'm talking about are politicians who do such things as taking bribes/holding orgies or bucks parties with a heap of prostitutes, etc...and try very hard to make sure that nobody ever finds out about them doing it, while at the same time condemning and punishing people who openly do the same.

    The bottom line is that a dark side is something we *all* have, every last one of us...and you're either intimate with it, know its' dimensions, allow it expression in controlled ways, and thus are able to stay on top of it...or you try to deny its' existence, repress it, stuff it underground, and condemn others who express theirs...and reap the negative consequences of doing so.

  131. Child pornography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps I am the oddball, but why should a 16 year-old minor be labeled as a sex-offender for having child pornography on his/her computer? I realize the line must be drawn somewhere, but I find nothing wrong with two sexually-active (or curious) teenagers sharing erotic photos of each other. I'd rather have minors sexually interested in people their own age than have an adult solicit erotic photos of himself/herself to a minor.

  132. And I always get fire..... by Tanuki64 · · Score: 0

    ..when I call lusers luser. There is always a nice or not so nice soul who tells me that just because you cannot keep your computer clean, you are not an idiot. Geeks are arrogant, for lusers a computer is just a tool, the don't want to study computer science. And all that stuff telling me I should shut up.

    But I wonder whether all the judges are computer geeks, too. Convicting someone just because he did not study computer science and could not keep his computer clean.

    So I wonder who is right: The ones who excuse even the gravest stupidity, like using a potential dangerous tool without even trying to inform one selves of the dangers beforehand and partly even revel in their lack of knowledge. Or the ones who might not always be the nicest persons with the best communication skills, ridiculing the former ones.

    I do disregard most of the responses I get in several forums. Most of the insults one gets in a forum come from people who would not even dare to speak to someone in real lift. But I did get some insults in real life when I pointed out security risks, though mostly I was ignored with responses like: 'I don't care that I have a few trojans on my computer. It does not contain important stuff'.

    Under that circumstances I must apologize for being an asshole, but I just love to read such reports with a deep malicious joy. There cannot be enough people whose life and reputation is destroyed by malware. Perhaps the attitude of the lusers and their the luser union will change someday.

  133. Stupid interview by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

    They're most definitely trying to paint him as a sucker, I mean, when have you ever seen an interview that transcribes every 'uh' the man says?

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
  134. Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about those first bath pictures?

  135. Stupid defense by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't make it into a pissing contest.

    Any country where you can get prosecuted for showing an issue of Playboy to your friends have serious problems, be it North Korea, Saudi-Arabia or USA.

    1. Re:Stupid defense by OctaviusIII · · Score: 1

      And yet, the women saying porn in any form is offensive, demeaning, and promotes sexual violence aren't showing up on /.

      A law that doesn't quite fit the leftist libertarianism you hold dear is not enough to make it comparable to a country that starves its people intentionally to support a backwards Stalinist regime or to a nation that thinks it's ok to promote the wanton murder of those that do not share the same faith.

      Yeah, laws limiting the distribution of porn is really comparable.

      --
      What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
  136. Why not "yankee"? by jlehtira · · Score: 1

    We here farther east take American to mean someone from America (rather logically!). If we want to be specific, we say "north american" or even "yankee". Which I think is a perfect term for someone from USA.

    1. Re:Why not "yankee"? by Snarfangel · · Score: 1

      We here farther east take American to mean someone from America (rather logically!). If we want to be specific, we say "north american" or even "yankee". Which I think is a perfect term for someone from USA.

      People from the southern United States might have a bit of an argument with you, much like you would if we started calling people from your country "Stinkbunnies."

      --
      This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
    2. Re:Why not "yankee"? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      even "yankee". Which I think is a perfect term for someone from USA.

      Try calling someone from the American South that and see how far it gets you. Probably a black eye.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Why not "yankee"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We here farther east take American to mean someone from America (rather logically!) I don't see any logic in that, as there's no continent, country, province or state called "America".
  137. American, Shamerican by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a US citizen living abroad I sympathise with other residents of the Americas taking umbrage with our appropriation of an entire continent's name. However, there isn't really any sensible replacement. USAian looks and sounds stupid, so you will never get 300+ million people adopting it, no matter how sympathetic they are to your point. Every other identifier for folks from the US, from "yank" to "gringo" has derogatory connotations, so you won't see us stampeding to change our label to that either.

    The fact is that we've been called Americans for over two hundred years, and the etymology of the word stems quite clearly from the name of the country "United States of America." Since Unitidians and Statsians are too generic, American is the term that evolved.

    I suppose we could start calling ourselves "Americans of US citizenship" or some other stupid, ungainly term, but anyone doing so would be trivially identified as a politically correct dogmatist of gargantuan proportions, and probably laughed at almost as much as those who use USian, or other inane terms like "Sie" as a singular gender neutral pronoun ("their" may be grammatically wrong, but at least it doesn't sound utterly contrived--but I digress.).

    So, if someone can come up with a sensible replacement for "American" that doesn't sound like PC newspeak or involve multiple words, and isn't derogatory, I will entertain the notion of adopting it. But until that happens, I will consider calling myself American, with due apologies to the other residents of America who also happen to be able to call themselves Belizian/Brazilian/Mexican/etc., and don't have 300+ million Americans demanding they should change their centuries-old national identifier.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:American, Shamerican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with Yank?

  138. Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not free to make computer components. It takes more energy than your computer will use in its life to manufacture it, and constant on/off puts mechanical stresses on the fans, hard drives, PSU and various thermal stresses on other components which signifigantly shortens the life of your computer. Much like recycling anything, aside from aluminium, uses more energy than it does to remanufacture the raw material. So just put it to sleep or low power mode and turn off your monitor.

    1. Re:Unfortunately... by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      Your suggestion is contradictory to your first statement. You complain that powering off a machine puts mechanical stress on fans, hard drives and components, but what low power mode are you using that doesn't power down the hard drive and most of the fans, and allow the CPU and motherboard to cool by not using them? By your logic, the machine should be up and running in full power mode at all times. If you put it to sleep, it's not going to stress it any worse to power it off.

      Still, I'm with you in that the machine doesn't need to be powered off. I switch off the monitor, and for safety from the outside world I put the firewall on a power strip. Turn that strip off, and the local machines are cut off from the world at large, but not each other in the house (and it's all hard-wired, so there's no remote exposure for wireless devices). Flip it on, and in seconds I'm on the 'Net.

      Virg

  139. Sex vs nazism by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    US has a problem with sex, one of the, if not the, major human drives, to the point of charging people for showing pictures of the human body.

    Many European countries have a problem with harboring or being occupied by an ideology that is probably the most widely recognized symbol of evil, that caused the major war of the last century, and millions to be killed in either battle or by outright murder. Older Europeans lived through it. As a result of these still open wounds, depicting few arcane symbol have been outlawed, as well as denying a specific (albeit important) historic event.

    Both are limitations to the personal freedom, but I don't see how the second in any way is comparable or justify the first.

    1. Re:Sex vs nazism by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      Of course sex is worse. Sex caused Nazism. No sex, no people, no people, no nazis. Sex is the number one cause of death for people across all races and ethnicities. It's clearly a causational problem.

      It's also the most fun around.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

  140. Sex Offence Theatre by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1
    Your friend was extremly lucky

    <ochlocrat>
    Ooggwwwaaaahhhhh!!! Lucky! Lucky!??! He wuz a PEDOPHILE!!!!! PEEED-O-FIIIILEE!!!! We. Have. To. Protect. Our. Children!!!!!

    'anging to good fo' 'im!!!! But Hang 'im anyway!!!!!! ......an lemme watch... ....Got anymore dirty stories?
    </ochlocrat>
    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  141. Re:Interview with the District Attorney in the cas by Askmum · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the biggest heap of FUD you've ever come across? Charge someone with child pornography whith a possible 90 years and then offer them a plea bargain of showing a Penthouse?

    I am so glad that the justice system in my country doesn't work that way.

  142. just wait till every judge's PC is infected by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    What happens when lots of politicians and lawyers and respectable people get infected?

    Will they be treated nicely, because they have nice $500/hr lawyers?

    Or is this maybe a fbi bait and trap trick?

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  143. Calling all sane moderators by alienmole · · Score: 1

    Please correct the grave injustice that has been done to the parent post. Thank you for your cooperation.

    1. Re:Calling all sane moderators by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Although it is hardly a new concept -- for millenia dictators have been using Total Criminalization(tm) as a way to get vicious assistants at every level of government. By making it such that someone must be bribed to get out of the way to get anything done, you gain a lot of supporters in government for your cause. It works wonders for everyone from Hitler to communists to heavy-handed socialism. And the best part? The bribed officials have done something illegal you can lord over them !!!

      Yeah, it's good to be the king.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Calling all sane moderators by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      ...er, at least until someone better at swaying the masses with idiotic promises comes along and he gets to be the one to stand in the way of all progress pending bribes both illegal and legal (political donations) to get the officials out of the way.

      We now return you to your completely inadequate Classical Political Worldviews brought to you by the same people who told you there was a big bogey man in the sky.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  144. Where is the CSI SS NSI to help by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    If the pentagon goonies can crack down terror cells in an instant, why cannot they analyse all the bots
    in the world and their traffic logs and figure out who makes and distros them out so they can go out with
    some navy seals to take out the authors.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  145. Related question: how do they know it's child porn by Falladir · · Score: 1

    I always assumed that when someone got busted on a child pornography charge, it was clear that the photo subjects were under 18 because they looked *much* younger than 18. Is this the case, or is there something more I should know?

    I know that people marketing legal porn have to keep records so that they can prove that their girls are of age, but what about the average teenage guy with a folder full of jpgs and mpgs from kazaa?

    I have seen a good deal of porn that would seem to be of 15-16 year old girls, if not for its conspicuous placement on high-traffic websites.

    How can I make sure that the porn that I keep intentionally is not going to get me in trouble?

  146. Seems to become somewhat of a problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a case full of questions IMHO.

    The computer: was it really riddled with spyware of was that a recent acquisition (as in: Mr X wants to store kiddie porn so the first thing he does is to get his system infected to provide plausible deniability). No up-to-date anti virus software installed? If so I'd want to know which one so I can avoid it when using Windows as it obviously didn't work..

    The 'perpetrator': I'm no expert in this field (nor do I want to be, I've had some police presentations for security experts where they showed us some 'milder' samples - I still get sick just thinking about it) but I'd find it strange to have your average *teenager* distribute child porn. Doesn't make sense.

    The prosecutor: I'm starting to get a bit fed up with the zealots out there. Wasn't the original principle "beyond reasonable doubt"? It doesn't matter that you're about to ruin someone's life forever, even before it's properly started (ditto RIAA)? How about focusing on some challenging targets instead?

    Once upon a time there was this concept that someone was entitled to a decent defense and was innocent until proven guilty. We're now at a stage where justice is bank balance dependent and you're only innocent until there's a free slot at Guantanamo Bay or they can stick a child pornographer/abuser label on you.

    The joy of progress measured by square feet of press coverage..

    1. Re:Seems to become somewhat of a problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing out on one of the principle problems that exists when the legal definition of child pornography and the definition that most people actually think of as child pornography conflict with each other.

      The 'perpetrator': I'm no expert in this field (nor do I want to be, I've had some police presentations for security experts where they showed us some 'milder' samples - I still get sick just thinking about it) but I'd find it strange to have your average *teenager* distribute child porn. Doesn't make sense.

      Most people think "child porn" means very young prepubescent children and old men. Utterly revolting in every aspect, and you'll never hear me complaining about locking the types of people who produce, or even possess, that sort of thing for a long time.

      The problem lies with the fact that there is still a large age range in which it isn't outright exploitation for there to be pornographic images, I'd peg it at around 14-18 depending on the circumstances. While still considered illegal under the statute, it has crossed into a threshold where there are many situations where it may be legally wrong but nobody was hurt or exploited in any way while doing it. There were rumors during my time in high school of one sophomore or junior girl who had distributed naked photographs of herself to some members of the football team of her own volition.

      My point is, it is psychologically healthy for a 16-year-old boy to be looking at girls from the 14- to 18- range. There are enough girls of that age out there who will give pictures of themselves to their boyfriends if they ask, as well. It could entirely be possible that this is what happened in his case.

      I firmly believe in harsh punishments for the offenders who target young children, but the one-size-fits-all law doesn't really work when you get to the point where you have individuals who are cognizant enough to choose to distribute images of themselves to other people without being prompted. While it's true that there may still be some exploitation occurring in this situation, it is unfair to say that every aspect of, for instance, a 16-year-old girl taking pictures for her 16-year-old boyfriend is morally wrong and should be prosecuted.

      The entire problem could be resolved with a bit of re-writing of the statute to disambiguate certain areas, and allow a "get out of jail free" card for the just-barely-too-young couple mentioned, without letting the legitimate predators go free.

  147. Re:Related question: how do they know it's child p by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

    You encrypt your partitions.

    No serious, the answer to your question solely depends on where you live. This case here happened in America, so all bets are off anyways. If you live there best try to avoid having images of women on your computer at all. Dressed or not.

  148. American != USA citizen by guindilla · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No. We, in spanish, say 'estado-unidenses'. And I am proud to belong to one of the few languages that have a name for... well, the United-Staters :-)

    I will add that, in many languages, the concept of United-Staters is getting root. I've seen it, among others, in French newspapers (états-uniens).

    I find surprising to see that a country do not have a name for themselves, and that they have the arrogance to take the name of the continent they live in.

    Of course, this might upset the United States of Mexico (Estados Unidos Mexicanos), as they are, also, a union of States. But we can not make everybody happy :-)

    1. Re:American != USA citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. We, in spanish, say 'estado-unidenses'.

      You call inhabitants of the Americas 'estado-unidenses'? That seems rather dumb.

      Oh wait, you are calling the inhabitant of the United States of America that. Well, I believe that was the point of the parent post differentiating Americans with Americanos. If you call the people of North and South America "Americanos" in your language, stop complaining about a group speaking a different language calling themselves "Americans," since you don't usually call yourselves that in Spanish or Portugeuse. As an added bonus, we won't even care if you call Mexicans 'estado-unidenses', since we almost never use that term for ourselves.

      I will add that, in many languages, the concept of United-Staters is getting root. I've seen it, among others, in French newspapers (états-uniens).

      They can go ahead and do so. After all, we call Deutschland "Germany." Just don't expect us to change our name for your convenience.

      I find surprising to see that a country do not have a name for themselves, and that they have the arrogance to take the name of the continent they live in.

      You think that's bad, try illegal aliens who have the arrogance to demand we change our immigration laws for them.

    2. Re:American != USA citizen by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      and that they have the arrogance to take the name of the continent they live in.

      At least we aren't arrogant enough to make up a name and change geography for our "continent". For the record, Europe doesn't exist. Its called Eurasia.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  149. To paraphrase Robin Williams... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 2, Funny

    It IS a country built by Puritans, people so uptight that the British kicked them out.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  150. OH, THE FELIDITY! by rolandog · · Score: 1

    Ha! Great link... all I could think of after visiting that site is: "OH, THE FELIDITY!"

    1. Re:OH, THE FELIDITY! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      They might just be referring to ad pictures still in the cache -- remember that the gubmint has no problem treating cached (or even deleted) stuff as "still there" and therefore "technically you are in posession of it".

      Remember, these are the same slimeballs who scrape the walls for marijuana smoke residue, then claim that residue, containing the chemicals is acual marijuana you are in posession of. Not evidence you had it at some time in the past, mind you. Actual posession since you are in posession of the walls.

      These are the same slimeballs who claim the new "war on terror" snooping things are to detect terrorists and only that, then immediately apply it to other crimes under the "What? What you lookin' at, pal? There's no legal requirement to use this only for terrorists, read the law" bull-sh**.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  151. No, it's not the nature of software. by master_p · · Score: 1

    "It's the nature of software."

    No, it's not the nature of software. It is the inferior programming languages used for making the software. If software was built with something like ADA or Haskell, then there would be much less problems.

    Personally I would sue everyone using C/C++ or any other unsafe language...and Microsoft would get a really big lawsuit for putting out a dangerous product.

  152. mod parent up by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

    (mostly because I don't see the original AC respond to their questions)...

    --
    "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
  153. Already happened in US by Mathinker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Old news in US...

    From URL http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife /2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm :

    > PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self
    > and posting them on the Internet, police said.

    (Found via the English Wikipedia article on Child Pornography, found via Google.)

    1. Re:Already happened in US by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This just in: PITTSBURGH (AP) -- An 18 year old boy has been arrested for drinking alcohol. Although he's a legal adult, the prosecutor said, "we still want to hold him legally old enough and responsible for drinking something we have deemed him not old enough to be responsible to drink." When asked about the logical inconsistency, the prosecutor said, "Take it up with the voters this fall."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  154. Honey trap PCs by ndg123 · · Score: 1

    I suspect they don't take this approach because they have limited abilities and legal powers to track and locate the users of the compromised machines, since those connections will be re-routed through various computers, networks, and jurisdictions. Having said that, various botnets have been cracked through analysis and tracing. Its not technical impossible, but its not particularly feasible.

  155. From the Bible, Genesis19: by jernejk · · Score: 1, Informative

    31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

          32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

          33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

          34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

          35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

          36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

          37And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

          38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

    1. Re:From the Bible, Genesis19: by jernejk · · Score: 1

      Since I was modded off-topic, I have to explain why I posted this.

      I think the morality of the western society is based on some - so called - Christian values. Some of the EU countries even insist on putting Christian roots in the future EU constitution. AFAIK the US of A is established on the same values and different Christian lobbies are quite strong over there (I could be wrong).

      The problem is, we are served just the convenient part of the values. Lot, for instance, was never punished for his "sins" - having sex with his own daughters, who could be under age (I don't remember this detail).

      Since laws are (or should be) based on general morality and values, I am on topic.

    2. Re:From the Bible, Genesis19: by wjeff · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention that prior to that "scene", Lot had offered up his daughters to a crowd of rioters to be gang raped, in order to distract them from attacking two angels that were visiting his house, and that Lot is rewarded and considered a good and holy man for being willing sacrifice a couple of young girls to protect a couple important supernatural beings, to his own benefit.

      Selective values indeed.

      --
      my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
  156. In other news... by sverdlichenko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Man could face 30-year prison term for murder. http://www.ky3.com/news/5123006.html

    It's better to die then see naked people.

  157. The upside is that when everyone is a criminal by gelfling · · Score: 1

    It won't mean anything anymore. I mean when everyone in the country with a computer is branded a sex offender and can't work or live anywhere then it will officially no longer be relevant. I'm hoping that day comes soon.

  158. Re:use your imagination by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    OBVIOUSLY if they make it always available on everyones computers like torrent seeds, and the person has no knowledge of it, guess what you are a pedophile too, and when they bust in on the 15000th person who didnt know anything about it, the judicial system will have to relax their laws from having too many false positives popping up.

    I always said the best hackers were in the porn industry!

  159. huh by walgurf · · Score: 1

    If you must punish someone, then why not punish those taking the photos instead of those who download them?

    Society is retarded.

  160. No WebeWeb? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There have been a bunch of comments already and no one has mentioned WebeWeb? I find that strange. I'm at work and filtered, so I can't google for links, but look for "Pierson" (the photographer) and "WebeWeb" (the umbrella site). It seems that the U.S. govt now believes that photographs of clothed children *not* engaged in sexual acts are now child porn. All I can do is shake my head, wonder, and start looking for some sensible place to migrate to when I retire in a few years.

  161. Take Microsoft to court by anand78 · · Score: 1

    This is insane, and would have been funny if I was not in this country. Spyware, popups and all are all used in insecure and inferior Windows & Internet Explorer. Why don't people get rid of both, and why don't the retarded lawyers get this. You can get nasty obscene popups even if you go to a news site. Why won't the regulators control that. Its not a hidden fact who advertises throught these popups. Go after the roots and have a policy in place to safeguard the end-user.

  162. Re:Funny.. (Couldn't help it) by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

    Vote for Bob.

    Mayor Quimby supports revolving door prisons.

    Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob -- a man twice convicted
    of attempted murder.

    Can you trust a man like Mayor Quimby?

    Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor.

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  163. The state of their union... by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 0

    The state of the politician's union is this:

    The FBI is immune from the laws they enforce. They are allowed to put kiddie porn on your PC then arrest you for having it.

    The DEA is immune from the drug laws they enforce. They are allowed to put drugs in your backpack and arrest you for having it. Posession (by a 14 year old girl) of 5 lbs of drugs as she crosses from Mexico (on a shopping trip) to Texas (where she lives) is a capital crime. It has been since the early '90s. There is no requirement that she knew the drugs were in there. She could have turned her back for 90 seconds, and some scum bag put the drugs in there. She's still comitted a capital crime.

    The ATF is immune from the gun laws they enforce. They were sent several weapons to evaluate to see if these semi-auto firearms could fall under the ATF's arbitrary definition of what is readily convertible to a machine gun. They said the guns were OK, and sent the back. Two years later, after the person who was manufacturing these firearms testified against the ATF, they raided his home and seized the arms claiming that they were machineguns.

    Nothing is going to change until we begin ambushing law enforcement, and Congress hangs from 535 jibbets.

    Andy Out!

  164. I turned in a client the other day by Electric+Eye · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've dealt with this particular family for a few years and the mother always let her teenage son download all sorts of porn, even though he's under 18, and laughed about it. She called me last week to fix her laptop and I found a ton of child porn on it. I brought it to the local PD and awaiting the outcome.

    I've been doing house calls and such for about 5 years and have never had this happen. I've seen some bizarre shit on people's machines, but nothing illegal before this. I have a baby daughter and I asked myself "Knowing what I know now about this kid, would I ever want him near my daughter? No. If he's searching for this shit, I don't want to let this go and then read 5 years down the road he molested somebody and I didn't do anything about it."

    I'm just glad I didn't spend much time working on the computer, because I'm pretty sure they aren't paying me now!

    1. Re:I turned in a client the other day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You committed a disgraceful breach of privacy, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    2. Re:I turned in a client the other day by Electric+Eye · · Score: 1

      Really? Because my explicit instructions from the mother was for me to find and remove all the porn on the computer. How exactly did I breach any sort of trust, moron?

    3. Re:I turned in a client the other day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should have stated that in the first place, then that troll wouldn't have had any material to work with.

      Then again, they always find something...

    4. Re:I turned in a client the other day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope that you get hit by a bus tomorrow and that you are paralyzed for the rest of your worthless life. No, seriously, I hope you live in agony for the rest of your days because you chose to destroy someone else's life out of fear for you daughter, who by the way will grow up to be a total slut, sucking cock long before she turns 18 and probably taking it in the bum by the time she can legally drink. So, in closing... way to go dude, you totally overreacted and destroyed someone's life and now you you are bragging about it -- here's to hoping for that bus, you fscking loser.

  165. Notification? by Geak · · Score: 0

    That's because sex offenders are unholy merchants of sin, corrupting our children with the devil's ways.Next you'll want notification when a priest moves into your neighborhood. Isn't that what the registered priest^H^H^H sex offender list is for?
  166. Trying to keep an open mind, here... by artemis67 · · Score: 1

    since I don't know this kid from Adam. And neither do any of you.

    But the ABC story never explained WHY the police showed up on his doorstep with a search warrant. Judges generally have to have a good reason to give those things out. What evidence did they have that prompted the investigation?

    Keep in mind that these shows on ABC and CBS, they look for stories where they can be the silver knight riding in on the white horse to save the day. They're selling a program, not justice. So, that may mean that a few facts get swept under the rug in order to tell their story they way they want it to be told, to completely suck the viewer in.

    I'm not saying that the kid is guilty, here. But the ABC story doesn't convince me that he's innocent, either.

  167. until it happens to a senator by wardk · · Score: 2, Informative

    we can all expect the inquisition to assume guilt and punish quickly, damn the facts, damn the humans

    it's the price of using Microsoft. meet the new tax

    1. Re:until it happens to a senator by Sardaukar0 · · Score: 1

      Didn't it already happen to a Senator?

  168. Won't be the last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Face it 100's of millions of powerful machines out there connected together most used by people who have no clue how or why they work. What, we are surprised when stuff like this or the Teacher story earlier happens?

    I have been at this game for 20 years and I'm not 100% sure my machine is clean right at this moment. How are a 15 year old or a substitute teacher supposed to deal with it all?

  169. Computer Security? by DaveHasMagicBeans · · Score: 1

    With all these legal cases brought for this sort of thing, maybe people should think more of security.

    Trojans and Spyware shouldn't get onto computers. The fact that the do shouldn't be acceptable. Many people, in my opinion, don't take a serious enough view of computer security. Yes, things might get though, but then again, people may break into your house, or steal your car. Just because it is a computer shouldn't make it not important.

    If people don't lock their house, open up all the doors and windows with valuables on display, it isn't surprising that you might come home and find yourself a little poorer, and someone might (unlikely, but it's just an example) have planted a dead body in your kitchen. Similarly, if someone opens up their computer on the Internet, things may well happen, and those things may well be incriminating for the owner. If people run a secure OS (Not windows), a secure browser (not IE), a good firewall, an up to date anti virus, and take as many security measures that are reasonable, then you don't get stuff like this. I fit does pop up, but your system should rapidly detect it and remove it.

    My point: People should do more about computer security if they don't want bad things to happen.

    Just my £0.02

    Dave.

    P.S. I also feel this is a terrible miscarriage of justice, even what he was charged with, but the above still stands.

    1. Re:Computer Security? by wjeff · · Score: 1

      While in theory I agree with you completely, in reality keeping a Windows box secure is nearly a full time job in and of itself even for an experienced computer user and is nearly impossible for an average user.

      And even if your system is reasonably secure from direct attack, that does nothing to help you when your music cd or tax prep software installs rootkits/compromise-able pseudo drivers, or when your favorite supposedly respectable websites are serving up trojaned images.

      And for all you folks out there who immediately want to say that is why the people shouldn't use Windows, once again "in theory" I agree with you unfortunately, Linux/FreeBSD/your OS-OS of choice, is still difficult for the average user to install and maintain, likely leading to an insecure OS anyway.

      Until computer/software products are held to the same quality standards as other consumer products, computer security and usefulness will continue to decline.

      The average user needs a computer to be like a modern toaster, buy it, plug it in, make toast, and shut itself off it the elements get to hot.

      --
      my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
  170. Re:If a teen has a naked pic of him/herself is tha by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    Actually, yes. There have been cases of a teen taking pictures of themselves naked, and sending them to a boy/girl friend, and getting charged with trafficking in child pornography.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  171. Felons and voting (Re:Funny.. ) by CrayDrygu · · Score: 1
    "Well... unless sex-offenders are not allowed to vote (is that the case?)"

    In many US states, ex-felons are not allowed to vote, no. And most of the sex offender laws of the class being discussed here are, in fact, felonies.

    Say what you will about the source of the quote, but it's true: Governments have no power over law-abiding citizens, only those who break the law. So, to gain power, governments create more and more restrictive laws, until eventually everybody is guilty of something. When that point is reached, the government can do whatever it wants, since it will have the means to lock up and silence anyone who dissents.

    Even if you're not overtly guilty of anything, it creates an atmosphere of fear, where people will avoid speaking up against the very government that claims to protect their right to free speech, simply because the government now has the ability to make up laws as it sees fit. If what you're doing isn't illegal, they'll simply make it illegal.

    Ruling by fear. There's another word for that, based on a synonym for fear, that's been tossed around a lot lately. Am I saying that the USA is in control of (domestic) terrorists? No...not yet. But I can't help but think it's headed that way.

    --

    --
    "I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett

  172. Seconded. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    It's more likely that Matt was having a little online fling with a few "MySpace hos", kids from school, xanga, amihotornot... whatever. It is quite prevalent. I think Mom, Dad, and the androgynous horde that is Slashdot needs to wake up a bit.

    I remember doing it like 8 years ago, when webcameras were new and expensive. Getting that digital cameras for christmas a GODSEND because you didn't have to chance developing the film after documenting your escapades.

    Poor kid. Needed a BIT more computer savvy. And never burn the stuff to CDs without obfuscating or mixing in with more mundane stuff (multi-session audio CDs with no autorun in the data section were good choices... and they doubled as mood music mix CDs)

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  173. just the ones that have been caught by coyote-san · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You're right that the pedophile rings that have been caught have usually been technologically challenged. We have no idea what the guys who haven't been caught are doing.

    This is normally a bullshit argument since we could use it to make literally any claim, but this is a unique situation since some of the malware out there is quite sophisticated (e.g., using private digital certificates on control channels) and the idea of a combination VPN/P2P network to host illegal material is fairly obvious to anyone with a technical background. Sufficiently motivated people (e.g., people facing decades in prison) will make the effort to contact the malware producers who can provide secure channels.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  174. Farm Sluts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a pretty funny short movie about this type of thing starring Saturday Night Live's Chris Parnell called Farm Sluts: http://content.foxsearchlight.com/videos/node/598, about a guy whose life is ruined by just such pop-ups. Good supporting cast too.

  175. two or more Yahoo! IDs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm puzzled about something here. According to this there were two users logged into Yahoo! on the same computer at the same tyme. Yet neither I nor anyone else I know has been able to do this,

    Run two different browsers (Firefox and Opera for example) and you're done. It's not a very mighty hack.

    Uhm, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.

    Falcon
  176. You must be new here. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    No, I've been a member for several years.

    Falcon
  177. photography by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who is the president of a photography club in CT. He's been arrested twice for refusing to turn over his rolls of film - with pictures of local WPA bridges & Buildings.

    Unfortunately stuff like this is getting to be more and more common in the new police state of the USA. People can and do fight it but most don't want the inconvenience of being arrested so they'll just hand over their film docilely. For those who want to fight this there's a pdf handbook that can be downloaded, Legal Rights of Photographers. It goes into detail explaining what a photographer should do if approached by law enforcement. Actually I think, I don't recall for sure, I may of first heard of it here when someone else posted a link to it a few years back in another thread. It was either here or Photo.net.

    Falcon
  178. What the hell is this guy doing? by grimJester · · Score: 1

    ANDREW THOMAS: Well, in...initially, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children uh, came into contact with the Phoenix police department. They...as a result of that tip, and evidence uh, linking that computer to a yahoo web site were able to work with our office, obtain search warrants. And uh, they went in and uh, conducted that uh, uh...that investigation.

    ANDREW THOMAS: They then spoke to the uh...the juvenile who made uh, certain admissions. Uh, while he denied accessing adult uh, pornography, he did admit to being a part of uh, accessing uh, adult pornography and... (OFF-MIKE)

  179. I hope you're proud. You ruined the kid's life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    explicit instructions from the mother was for me to find and remove all the porn on the computer

    Then that's what you should've done.
    That child needed a stern talking to and perhaps grounding. You got him a lifetime in prison.
  180. um? by Tuffsnake · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess my first question is how the kid can be in trouble if he isn't even an adult yet...

  181. What about spam? by pissedoffamerican · · Score: 1

    So, what happens when you get a spam email with a dirty picture sent to you? It's not like you can filter out all spam before you download them from the pop server.

    Hit send/receive and you can instantly become a child pornographer. Sweet. The law is on our side.

  182. I call bullshit by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    I always turn my computers off after use. I have three desktops here as well as one laptop. I have only lost 1 hard disk in the last 15 years. Some of the computers I'm using are over 7 years old. We don't run central heating and in winter the computers will go to a few degrees above freezing overnight and get powered up while cold.

    I don't see that thermal stress is a practical consideration in most domestic environments.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  183. I fixed your typo by syukton · · Score: 1
    We crazy-ass Americans have such bizarre hangups about sex... Jesus-folks, get over it.
    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  184. Hegelian Principle by fusion9290991 · · Score: 1

    Google for it. In a nutshell:
    Planned Change: Create a conflict. Then create opposition to conflict; eg, fear, panic, hysteria. Then offer the solution to the problem created by step one. Change, which would have been impossible without the proper conditioning (steps one and two), is achieved.

    So what are 'they' trying to achieve?

    --
    remember to loot and pillage before you burn!
  185. Why advertise to "random people" by hadaso · · Score: 1

    > Why are the child porn types writing software that magically
    > puts child porn on random people's computers?
    > I'm really not clear about what they're accomplishing there, ...

    And why do spammers send spam advertising whatever to "random people"?
    The point you (and most everyone) doesn't understand is that spammers (advertisers of porn and child porn included) do not send their advertising to "people" at all. Spammers that "advertise" petty stock are advertising to a tiny percantage of email users and their method of reaching those mailboxes is issuing all the email routing instructions they know. Advertisers of child porn are trying to reach a tiny fraction of the population that is willing to pay for their "offering" and their method is using software inserted into hundreds of thousands of hijacked PCs that shows popup ads (probably not just of child porn). Haven't you seen TV commercials directed at much less than half the watching audience?

    The point is that the advertiser cares only about the relevant audience: potential paying customers. The rest of the targets is a side effect of the method of market research. Since it is much more expensive (or impossible) to find out in advance exactly how to reach your potential audience, you use a method that would bring your "message" to a wider audience that would include your desired audience. The ones who want the info would come to you. The rest of them would ignore it, or perhaps would be annoyed or appaled, but what do you care: they're not potential customers of yours anyway!

    TV comercials are expensive, so advertisers at least invest in finding audiences that have higher percentage of their desired audience (relative to cost of advertising). Email and popup and other spam costs next to nothing, so the most cost effective method of "market research" here is to just send to as many "random targets" as possible. Some of them would turn out to be paying customers. The rest of them are not interesting. The spammer doesn't care what they think.

    So this is the explanation of their motive: they didn't really know if you or your windows based server is a consumer child pornography. Since it cost them nothing to install their software on your machine they did it anyway "just in case".

    Some consequences:
    Ratio of customers/spam served is imaterial. Spammers would send as much as they can and take as much business as they get.
    Therefore blocking spam to uninterested parties does not hurt the spammer's business model. It helps the spammer, since the spammer's business model is tto let the market research itself by having uninterested parties not respond to spam.
    Spammers are not interested in "removing" email addresses. sending does not cost them as much as maintaining "clean lists". They only handle whoever is responding and paying for their stuff. They don't and cannot handle the rest of us. There are too many of us and dealing with us produces no income to the spammer.
    Finally: spamers (including popup spammers that sell anything, including child porn) are not equipped to handle masses of responds that don't lead to income. Not responding to them helps them keep their businesses running. If people start responding, making them act on the response but producing no income their business model would collapse.
    So if you want to hurt child pornography business the way to act would be to let them popup their ads, erspond to them, feed in fake info and fake CC number and order some of their stuff. Eventually they would find out the info is fake, possibly after paying for the processing of the fake order. If enough people do it they would not be able to find someone to process their order.
    Unfortunately if you do try to interfere with their business you might go to jail for the child pronography they displayed on your PC, so its best to let them have it their way and let the law enforcement agencies handle this themselves.
    It's still legal to spam other spammers (i.e. overload them with real fake responses. responses of real people that are indistinguishable from responses by real customers without human effort).

  186. Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not true in any state that I am familiar with. Perhaps there are some states where a 15 and 17 year old having sex is statutory rape, but I am not aware of any.

    Where things get really funny is that the hypothetical 15 and 17 year olds could lawfully have sex with each other, but if they happen take pictures of it, then they are both committing several counts of felony possession and creation of child pornography and if caught, would be subject to insanely long prison terms and have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

    The law works in strange ways, eh?

  187. Strange reaction by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1
    Knowing what I know now about this kid, would I ever want him near my daughter?
    Why are you so surprised that this child is sexually attracted to other children his own age?
    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  188. piratebay pron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I demand that my local, state and federal prosecutors comment each and every porn file on piratebay so that I don't accidentally have any child porn on my computer.

    "How was I supposed to know that she was 1 month too young!!! WTF, I'm not a carny! I don't guess her age to keep my ass out of prison! I pay your salary you conviction whore, get to work."

  189. multiple Yahoo ID used at the same tyme by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Oh. Well, then. Separate browsers, or multiple copies of Firefox with different profiles. I've used the later to log in with two different accounts on some websites, and it wasn't that difficult to set up with FF 2. The only irritating part about it was that I couldn't just click on links in IRC or such, but had to copy and paste them.

    Yea, someone else mentioned different browsers could be used, it's something I hadn't thought of. You've used different copies of Firefox? What did you do, install more than one version, or install the same version in different places? If you do this, either one, do they keep thier own settings or do they share the same ones? I'd like to be able to install different versions on the same computer but keep them separated so I could test websites in the different versions.

    Falcon
    1. Re:multiple Yahoo ID used at the same tyme by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

      I was using multiple instances of a single copy of Firefox 2, with separate profiles. I forget the details now, and have since removed the command-line parameters I used to be able to do this. I found it by doing a search, probably for "firefox multiple instances" or such.

  190. Matt Bandy update by The+Bandy+Team · · Score: 1

    Here's another scathing story about the Bandy case, published January 25. Others are archived on the Justice For Matt website. http://www.justice4matt.com/ Doubting Thomas By Sarah Fenske County prosecutors charged a teenager with looking at kiddy porn. Turns out they hadn't done their homework http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2007-01-25/n ews/news_print.html Thanks, The Bandy Team