Slashdot Mirror
"Accidental" Download Sending 22-Year-Old Man To Prison
An anonymous reader writes "Two years ago, Matthew White searched Limewire for porn. He was looking for 'College Girls Gone Wild,' but ended up downloading some images of child pornography. This was accidental, according to White, and he quickly deleted the images. A year later, the FBI showed up on his family's doorstep and asked to search the computer. After thorough sleuthing, the FBI found some images 'deep within the hard drive.' According to White, the investigators agreed that he himself could not have accessed the files anymore. Matthew now faces 20 years in jail for possession of child pornography. On advice from his lawyer, he intends to plead guilty so that he will 'hopefully' end up with 3.5 years in jail, 10 years probation and a registration as a sex offender. 'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately. They may confiscate your computer, but it's better than the alternative.'"
That's one thing people are really stupid about - if a cop (or FBI agent, same thing) comes knocking at your door wanting to "look around" and you know you didn't do anything wrong, don't let them in.
At the very least if they find anything remotely suspicious they can drag you into the investigation on the spot (you're already in it a little bit), and they may also find something that looks like evidence for their case tying you to whatever, in which case you get arrested.
The cops don't have a right to look at your stuff unless they have evidence that you've done something wrong. Why would you let them try to find something you may not even think was wrong in the first place.
No jury will convict. "Deep int he hard drive" - it is to laugh.
That's not true at all, while juries usually get it right I think, there are a number of cases where the prosecutor was good at portraying the defendant as the criminal - they "just knew" he was the one who did it. In that case they will sometimes disregard the "reasonable doubt" metric (especially likely if it is for something like child port). "I accidentally downloaded it" is a horrible defense, and will leave the jury thinking "yeah right" and convict the hell out of the guy.
I disagree with a poster above who said if you really did accidentally download child porn you wouldn't hide it, you'd report it - most people think "Oh shit, they are going to think I like kiddy porn!" and bury the hell out of stuff like that. They are more afraid of someone pinning something on them unjustly.
However, I think it is great advice to call the FBI when you see something like that, get it on record that you accidentally downloaded kiddy porn and you want to know what the FBI is doing to catch the bastards who make and distribute it.
The other piece of this though, is that he was using Limewire and almost certainly sharing copyrighted material illegally. Going to the FBI with evidence of kiddy porn (and a download from limewire would be an excellent place to start tracking that shit) could result in multiple copyright infringement violations - another reason to bury the download instead of reporting it.
The true moral of the story, is quit breaking the fucking law, and if you see someone else breaking the law (like distributing child porn) fucking tell someone. Do those two things and you'll be fine unless someone decides to railroad you. Then you could be screwed, but your record will be your best defense.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Your point was that guns could be turned against their user, and are therefore dangerous and should be banned.
My point was that a) some guns cannot be turned against their owner, and b) pretty much any self-defense item could be turned against its user. Do you agree that other self-defense items should be banned?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
you get all pissy
Not a bit. I don't mind a debate at all.
Apparently, pointing out that guns can be used dangerously is a call to ban them,
That's what gun control proponents generally say.
at least in the minds of the terminally stupid.
I'll let them know your opinion of them.
We should ban nuclear bombs as self-defense
No way. I like mine. It's a little too bulky to carry with me everywhere, but I've never felt safer.
Presidents aren't always the smartest folks, are they?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I'll give you a shoe, some nails, and board and have you put the nails in the board with the shoe.
I could do that. Of course, to certain extent, that depends on the shoe, the nail and the board. I'd have a very hard time putting a railroad spike through a 4x4 with a flip-flop.
Or, as started this, would a woman getting a gun to protect herself from her abusive husband make her safer or less safe?
That is going to depend heavily on the woman herself, her level of competence and confidence, and her willingness to carry, wield, and fire a weapon. I'm sure that many women would rather take their chances surrendering themselves to the attacker than fighting back. There was a blurb I heard on TV (yeah, I know, crummy citation) that said women who fought back physically (not necessarily with a firearm) stood an excellent chance of driving off her attacker. On the other hand, those who fought back and lost generally received more abuse than those who complied.
Just to be clear, I realize you haven't argued that the woman shouldn't fight back. My point is that in an attack, there are a couple choices to be made: a) do I fight or comply? and b) if I choose fight, how best to do it. Of course, b) is mostly going to be determined prior to the confrontation based on how she prepared herself, if at all. I still say that she should at have the legal option of using a firearm. At that point, it is her choice, not the government's.
Since I've started using unattributed anecdotes from TV, I might as well continue. This kind of reminds me of a show I saw on bullfighting. I had never been in favor of bullfighting, and I still can't understand why people want to watch it. (So why was I watching the show? Insomnia + channel surfing + mild curiosity.) That being said, something a bullfighting supporter said kind of stuck with me. He said something to the effect of "If you were a bull and you were going to be slaughtered, would you want to go meekly into the slaughterhouse, or would you want to at least have a chance to fight back against your killer?" Regardless of the actual reality of bullfighting vs. the more romanticized anthropomorphic view, the underlying question is "In a bad situation, how do you want to go out?"
it's really hard to do the statistics
Agreed.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.