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.

80 of 815 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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

    5. 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?

    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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.'

  2. 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?
  3. 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 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
    3. 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.

  4. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  5. 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.

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

    Seems common sense is abscent.

  7. 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 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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
  11. 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 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

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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

    8. 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!
    9. 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
    10. 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*
    11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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 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!

    2. 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*

    3. 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. 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.

  18. Sex offender label... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... priceless

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  19. 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

  20. 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/
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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: 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.

  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. 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.

    --
  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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
  37. 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...

  38. 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.

  39. 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